The Geneva-2 Conference, which was held from January 22 to 31, 2014, did not bring any significant progress in resolving the Syrian Crisis, brewing since March 2011. Its only result can probably be considered the fact of merely holding an international conference, which brought together more than 30 participants, including the heads of the Foreign Ministry of the Russian Federation and the U.S. State Department, who confirmed that the Syrian Crisis could be resolved only by political means. Both sides of the Syrian conflict were represented for the first time at the conference. The delegation from the Syrian government, headed by Walid Muallim, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic (SAR), and Ahmad Jarba, the leader of the National Coalition for Revolutionary and Opposition Forces (NCROF), called “the only legitimate representative of the Syrian people” by the West.

The delegations managed to discuss only the issues relating to the provision of humanitarian aid to the people living in the areas blocked as a result of the fighting, the exchange of prisoners and the activities of terrorists in the Syrian confrontation. The negotiations were conducted through an intermediary – Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN and LAS special envoy on the Syrian issue. However, no concrete results were achieved, including in regard of the passage of a humanitarian convoy in the city of Homs, which, as well as the exit of civilians from Homs, is prevented by the anti-government armed groups active in that area. Nevertheless, the Syrian government delegation and the representatives of NCROF reached an agreement on the next round of talks, which would be held on February 10, 2014. The sides demonstrated completely different positions on the issue of the terrorist groups. Actually, NCROF avoided the discussion of this issue, saying that the “Syrian regime accuses everyone here of supporting terrorists”.

At the same time, the issue involving the activities of terrorist groups is the key one for the solution of the Syrian crisis. According to Syrian official sources, more than one thousand anti-government armed groups, totaling tens of thousands of fighters, are active in Syria now. Most of these have foreign mercenaries from over 80 countries. The most famous are the Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, affiliated with the Al-Qaeda, and the Islamic Front, Syrian Revolutionary Front and the Free Syrian Army. The latter is positioned by the West as a less Islamized group and not associated with al-Qaeda. At the end of 2013, an armed confrontation between different groups began, in particular, between the Islamic State and Nusra Front on the one side, and the Free Syrian Army and Islamic Front on the other. In turn, the Syrian government defines all anti-government armed groups as terrorist units. At the Geneva-2 conference, representatives of the Syrian government rightly raised the question of “who are some of the participants of the conference – firefighters or fire starters in the Syrian conflict?” They meant the support that the armed groups continued to receive from such countries as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as well as the penetration of militants from Turkey into Syria. In turn, the U.S., which had stopped the provision of military aid to the armed opposition earlier, nevertheless, resumed it in early 2014. France also told about the continuation of its support to the Syrian opposition. In England, the former Prime Minister Tony Blair said before the Geneva-2, that it was necessary “to support the Syrian opposition in order to establish a balance of power between them and Assad’s regime”. Indeed, such a position of these countries can hardly be qualified as one promoting the resolution of the Syrian conflict, rather to the contrary. Statements of their representatives that they “do not provide assistance to radical opposition forces” can hardly be taken seriously. It is obvious that the anti-government armed groups in Syria are, as they were figuratively described by the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, a type of “communicating vessels”, and their weapons and militants “flow from one to the other, depending on where they are paid more”.

The situation before and during the beginning of the Geneva-2, also did not promote a political settlement. We should recall the story of the invitation to the conference for Iran, which was made by the UN Secretary General, who later withdrew it at the request of the United States and NCROF, which fact, to put it mildly, seriously discredited the UN and reduced the effectiveness of the Geneva-2. A report by a representative of Qatar about alleged widespread torture of prisoners in Syrian prisons was published before the conference. The Euronews Channel showed an interview with a Syrian being presented as a witness who had suffered torture. At the same time, the statement of representatives of the Human Rights Watch ware made public, accusing the Syrian government of the intentional destruction of houses, allegedly belonging to opposition supporters. Moreover, aerial photographs taken from airplanes and satellites of the United States were shown as evidence. Obviously, these actions and accusations, the groundlessness of which was proven by the response of the Syrian government, were a kind of propaganda “artillery preparation” for an attack on the leadership of al-Assad with a view of, once again, voicing demands for his resignation and foreign intervention in Syria. During the talks in Geneva, NCROF tried to raise the issue of President Assad’s resignation and the transfer of power to a transitional authority. However, the Syrian government delegation rightly refused to consider it before the main problems were solved – the activities of terrorist groups and cessation of the armed confrontation.

It is obvious that NCROF’s demand to transfer power to the transitional authority, which would not include representatives of the current Syrian government, is absurd and unreal. It means that NCROF seeks to dominate in this transitional authority structure. However, we know that NCROF consists of different, often warring, factions, where the leading role is played by Islamists, including those professing the jihadist ideology. Accordingly, in the event of a hypothetical transfer of power to the transitional authority, where NCROF dominates, first, a struggle for power would start inside the NCROF, second, given the presence of a large number of armed Islamist groups in Syria, power would be seized by these groups. Finally, this situation is likely to lead to a civil war and the disintegration of Syria, as the current Syrian leadership is supported by all law enforcement and government agencies, as well as the party, trade union, youth and other organizations, who, together with their families, number 8 to 9 million people (out of the 24 million population of Syria). These people would suffer an inevitable genocide in case the Islamists came to power.

Such a position of NCROF and external players, supporting it, indicates that they are not interested in a political settlement of the Syrian crisis. However, such a position of NCROF can be explained, since it is clear that NCROF has no chances of coming to power in case of free and democratic elections in Syria, under the supervision of objective international observers – it is already quite discredited by its relations with terrorist armed groups that committed numerous crimes in Syria. NCROF can hope to come to power only with the help of a foreign military intervention.

Thus, we have to say once again that the goals of the Geneva-2 participants are different. While Russia, the countries sharing its position, and the Syrian leadership, seek to reach a consensus and find a political solution to the conflict, the main purpose of NCROF, NATO countries and the Gulf monarchies, supporting it, is to remove the government of B. Assad in any way possible, and by any means. Nevertheless, it is necessary to hold further negotiations within the Geneva-2 because, first, there is no other mechanism under the auspices of the UN, aiming at the solution to the Syrian Crisis. Second, the position of the external players, supporting Syrian opposition, are undergoing some changes, as the strengthening of jihadist groups in the Middle East could threaten their interests and security. This is evidenced, for example, by the fact that Turkey closed border-crossing points, which were captured by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant from the Syrian side, and it did this out of fear that the militants, after infiltrating into Turkey, could commit terrorist acts against NCROF structures located there. For its part, the United States told about its support for Iraqi authorities in their fight against the militants of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, who seized areas of Iraq’s province of Anbar bordering on Syria.

At the same time, the next round of the Geneva-2 talks can be much more productive if representatives of the internal Syrian opposition are invited to them, the need for which was rightly pointed out by the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation.

Boris Dolgov, PhD in History, Senior Research Fellow of the Center for Arabic Studies of the Russian Institute of Oriental Studies, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

In September and October 2013, there occurred a series of changes in the U.S. policy in the Middle East. First of all, we are talking about the USA’s refusal from military intervention in Syria at the present, and some softening of the American position towards Iran and its nuclear program. These changes have caused a negative reaction from the most important American allies, such as the regional “centers of power”, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Turkey.

KSA has positioned itself as a leader of the Muslim Sunni world. After the start of the “Arab Spring” in 2011, the KSA has provided support to Sunni Islamist movements in a number of countries in order to create a block of the Sunni rulers. This was a kind of revival of the “Caliphate”, where the KSA would play a dominant role. Since the beginning of the civil war in Syria, the KSA has actively supported the Syrian Sunni armed opposition, whose goal was to overthrow President Assad and to establish an “Islamic state”. Youssef Karadaui and Mohammed Aarun, well-known Sunni ideologists who settled in the KSA, presented some scientifically based rules, calling for the initiation of jihad against the Syrian leadership, represented mainly by the Alawites. Bandar bin Sultan, the head of KSA secret service, and member of the Saudi ruling dynasty, financed the armament of the Syrian rebels.

As for the attitude towards Shiite Iran, the KSA and other Gulf monarchies, united in the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG), under the auspices of the KSA, have seen in this country a threat to their regimes, since the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979. They accuse Iran of “Shiite expansionism” and the desire to expand the idea of a Shiite Islamic revolution in the CCASG countries, which have quite numerous Shiite communities, some of which are fighting against the infringement of their rights by the Sunni ruling regimes. As an example, it is necessary to cite the protests of the Shiite Muslims, who represent the majority population of Bahrain, against the ruling Sunni Al Khalifa dynasty in 2011-2013. These actions were suppressed by the authorities with the help of Saudi troops. Moreover, Iran and a number of international human rights organizations accused the government of Bahrain and the KSA of using weapons against the demonstrators, which led to many killed and injured people.

Turkey has a similar attitude towards the Syrian conflict and wants to create a block of Sunni states. The current Turkish leadership, represented by moderate Sunni Islamists, coming from the “Muslim Brotherhood”, considers the Syrian Sunni opposition as its allies and provides them full support in their struggle against Assad. In addition, part of the Turkish political establishment, professing the ideology of “neo-Ottomanism”, has not forgotten that Syria was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire for 400 years. There is an unsolved territorial dispute between Turkey and Syria on the “Sanjak of Alexandretta”. This territory was once a part of the Ottoman Empire. After defeat in the First World War, and Turkey’s collapse (1922), the territory was transferred to Syria. As for the Turkish policy towards Iran, Turkey competes with it for leadership in the region. Thus, one of Turkey’s global interests is the weakening of Iran’s ally, Syria. An important role in the politics of KSA and Turkey against Iran is fueling a Sunni-Shiite conflict, which increased after the Syrian conflict started. Sunni ideologists, especially in the KSA, consider that the Alawite Syrian leaders are “not true Muslims and Infidels”. However, Turkey, in contrast to the KSA, does not consider Iran a potential threat or a potential enemy.

KSA and Turkey’s attitudes towards Syria and Iran have largely followed the strategy of the U.S., Israel and NATO. Namely, the removal of the Assad regime, one of Iran’s allies, offered the possibility of making a subsequent strike on Iranian nuclear objects, to suppress the Hezbollah Shiite movement, supported by Syria and to minimize Iranian influence in Iraq. KSA and Turkey expected that the planned U.S. military strike on Syria would have led to the defeat of the Syrian army, caused the fall of Assad’s leadership, and ended with the installation of the Syrian Sunni opposition. Moreover, the KSA and some members of the CCASG wanted even to reimburse the expenses of the U.S.’s strike against Syria. These last two were disappointed by the refusal from U.S. military intervention in Syria. At the same time, this decision was a forced step on the part of the U.S. administration. It was the result of a split in opinions on military intervention in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. The pretext of Syrian army’s use of chemical weapons against opposition groups was vivid. Protests against U.S. military intervention took place in many countries, including the EU. Even the Pope of Rome expressed his opposition to an attack. The position of Russia and its initiative to get the EU involved in the subsequent destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons, supported by Syria, had a great impact on stopping the planned military intervention. As a result, Russia’s authority and influence rose greatly and was new proof that the country is an important actor in global politics.

Along with this, the U.S. position towards Iran changed after the election of the new Iranian president Hassan Rouhani and his statements about being ready for greater openness and cooperation with the West on Iran’s nuclear program. The new, less rigid, policy of President Rouhani, compared to its predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, could contribute to the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran. CSA, as well as Turkey, were greatly disappointed and even frustrated and irritated, by the changed U.S. policy toward Syria and Iran. This could have been observed by the refusal of the KSA to become a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. This refusal was motivated by the fact that the UN Security Council, according to the KSA, was “paralyzed the actions of its permanent members and it could not solve international problems, including condemnation of the crimes of Assad’s regime, ending of the civil war in Syria, and the solving of the Palestinian problem”. Some media quoted Bandar bin Sultan, one of the most influential members of the ruling family and head of the KSA secret service. He said that the KSA might revise its cooperation with the U.S. in the field of arms purchases, supply of energy resources to the United States, and to a lesser extent coordinate with the USA its policy towards Syria. The KSA, from its point of view, also complained about the “lack of the United States’ support of the KSA during anti-government demonstrations in Bahrain. At the same time, what Bandar bin Sultan said during a meeting with foreign diplomats cannot be regarded as official policy. These are not necessarily the views of King Abdullah of the KSA or Prince Salman bin Abdul Aziz, and perhaps this discourse is connected with conflicts within the royal family.

As for Turkey, many experts believe that this country showed its position by the purchase of modern long-range air defense systems from China, which was an unprecedented arms purchase by a NATO member country from China. The U.S. and NATO, including the Secretary General of NATO, have expressed their concern about this transaction. In particular, it has been stated that the air defense system, made ​​in China, will not match the weapons systems used by NATO, and it will create difficulties both for NATO and for Turkey. The implementation of the transaction remains an open question. However, the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Erdogan, said that the transaction with China “does not depend on the position of NATO”.

Thus, we can say that there is a tendency of the KSA and Turkey to detach themselves from the position of most U.S. allies in the region, which they held for several decades in the past. However, these kind of cold relations of the allies towards each other were observed in the past as well. During the Arab-Israeli war in 1973, the KSA used its “oil weapon”, greatly reducing energy supplies to Western countries. In addition, Turkey did not cooperate with NATO at the time of the Greek-Turkish dispute over Cyprus. At the same time, the KSA and Turkey depend financially, economically, politically and militarily of the U.S. and the West. The U.S. is the guarantor of the stability of the KSA and CCASG member states, both in terms of a possible confrontation involving the Iranian threat and the fight against anti-government Islamist groups. The base of the U.S. Fifth Fleet is situated in Bahrain. Many people from business, political, financial and economic fields, including members of the ruling dynasties of the CCASG countries, have business relations with the United States and the West. Their influence is quite significant, as can be seen, for example, in the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain. The current generation of the politicians, business leaders and military elite of the Persian Gulf monarchies have studied in the United States. Moreover, the English language, generally speaking, has become the second official language in the CCASG countries, particularly in Qatar, UAE and Bahrain. That is why, it is difficult to imagine that the KSA will conduct a completely independent policy in the region, or one especially directed against U.S. interests. As for Turkey’s rapprochement with China, it is possible, but within certain limits. We believe it will be limited to the economic aspect. There is no vivid reason for Turkey and China’s cooperation. This is explained by the fact that they do not have common strategic objectives and have too diverse cultural and historical traditions, ideology and foreign policy priorities.

At the same time, a change in the attitude of the USA towards Iran and Syria does not mean a change of policy or strategic objectives of the U.S. in the Middle East. Moreover, the pro-Israel lobby in the United States has a predominant influence on American foreign policy. The Israeli prime minister continues to view Iran’s nuclear program as a threat for Israel, and the new Iranian president is called “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”. Regarding Syria, the U.S. government announced that a military strike was only “delayed”, and, as historical practice proves, it is not difficult to find some new motive for a military intervention.

Speaking about the strengthening of Russia’s position in the region, this is certainly true. However, this success must be developed throughout active steps. At the summit of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council (SEEC), held in October in Minsk, they spoke about the expansion of SEES and Turkey’s interest in collaboration. If Russia wants to, she could change the balance of power in the Middle East.

Boris Dolgov, Ph.D., researcher at the Center for Arab and Islamic Studies, the Institute of Oriental Studies, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

After his election, Morsi said that he “is the president of all Egyptians”. However, in reality, Morsi’s actions were guided by the tendency to monopolize power and implement his particularistic goals to apply his Sunni “Islamic Project”. President Morsi has actually concentrated in his hands all the branches of the government – legislative, executive and judicial. When he came to power, such Islamic groups as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and Islamic Groups, previously engaged in terrorism, started to create their own political parties along with the Salafi parties Nur (Light) and the Salafi Appeal. Islamist movements have increased their influence in the country. Paramilitary units, the so-called “Islamic Militia” have been created. As for foreign policy, Morsi openly supported the armed Syrian opposition and broke off diplomatic relations with Syria. The radical part of the Egyptian Brotherhood even tried to export the “Islamic Project” into the Persian Gulf, in which, according to them, the regime was not “Truly Islamic”. For example, in 2013 a group of Egyptian Islamists was arrested in the UAE who, according to the UAE authorities, planned “to carry out a coup d’état in the country” and “to expand their activities in Saudi Arabia”, which led to some tension in relations between the UAE and Egypt.

At the same time, the relationships with the U.S., Qatar and Turkey were a priority for Morsi, as he intended to develop the “Islamic Project” in the region with Ankara.

In domestic policy, Morsi’s Islamist leadership was not able to address the pressing social and economic problems, which had been the main cause of the Egyptian revolution in January 2011. According to the experts, in 2010 about 40% of Egyptians lived on less than $2 per day, in 2012, their number increased to 50%. This caused frustration and discontent, both of the political forces that took part in the revolution, and of ordinary citizens. Morsi’s policy, aimed at strengthening of the role of Islam in public life also provoked concern and protests of the population, who sought to preserve secular values. This situation led to division of the society, increased the social tensions and protests against Morsi’s leadership. The opposition movement, as they claim, have collected 23 million (according to other sources – 30 million) signatures, referred to the Constitutional Court, demanding the removal of Morsi from power. As a result of these actions, on July 3, 2013, the army, supported by the secular and democratic parties, police leadership, security services, Constitutional Court, as well as by the Grand Mufti of Egypt and the Coptic patriarch, temporarily suspended the constitution and removed the president Morsi from power. He was placed under house arrest. Along with this, several members and religious leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood were arrested on charges of inciting violence. The head of the Constitutional Court Adly Mansour was appointed as the acting president; he announced that early parliamentary and presidential elections were scheduled for early 2014. The Muslim Brotherhood refused the proposal of the new authorities to participate in the formation of a transitional government and began to organize protest demonstrations, which often grew into clashes with security forces and resulted in casualties on both sides. In accordance with the order of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Prosecutor General, on August 14, the Egyptian police force and special forces of the army started to liquidate the tent cities and barricades in Cairo, situated in front of the mosque on the square of Rabban al-Adawiya, Nahda in Giza and in front of the Cairo University. Here, the supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood conducted protests lasting one month, demanding Morsi’s return to power. Radical imams of the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Safwat Hegazy, called Morsi’s supporters to become “soldiers of Allah and sacrifice their lives for the return of Morsi to power”. During the operation, the Islamists showed a fierce resistance, including armed resistance. According to the official data, victims of clashes that occurred in the tent cities included several hundreds dead and about 2,000 wounded people, including more than 50 law enforcement officers. According to the representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood, more than 2,000 supporters of Morsi were killed. During the next days, the advocates of the Muslim Brotherhood attacked military officers and police stations in Cairo and several other cities. Administrative buildings were also subjected to attacks, in particular, the building of the local government in the district of Giza in Cairo and the trade union office were set on fire. In the city of Al-Arish, Islamist militants blew up the railway tracks; in the city of Minya they burned several Coptic churches and 5 schools.

According to eyewitnesses, among the attackers there were people, armed with assault rifles, pistols and Molotov cocktails. In Cairo, the gunmen fired at a police helicopter. The Prime Minister of Egypt, Bablavi,1 in his speech said that “some of the participants in the clashes had arms, as confirmed by the video shooting, a variety of weapons were also found on the site of the tent cities of the supporters of Morsi and he proposed to ban the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood. Egyptian media reported on the penetration of Al-Qaeda militants into Egypt and on the involvement of Syrian Islamists and militants of the Palestinian movement of Hamas in clashes with Egyptian security forces. Muhammad al-Zawahiri, the brother of Ayman al-Zawahiri, leader of al-Qaida, was arrested in Egypt. M. al-Zawahiri was the leader of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and encouraged the leadership of Morsi.

At the same time, people in Egypt began to form teams of volunteers, who assist law enforcement authorities to restore order and stabilize the situation in the country. Representatives of the liberal-democratic and leftist forces, in particular, Ahmed Maher, the leader of the April 6 Movement, calls the removal of the Islamists from power the Tamarrud Revolution” (Disturbance – Arabic name of the movement, which acted against the Islamists), a return to the authentic ideals of the Arab Spring, which the Muslim Brotherhood tried to usurp. Amr Moussa – one of the leaders of the National Salvation Front, which is in opposition to Morsi – the former Secretary General of the Arab League, in his turn, said that “millions of people went into the streets to support the actions of the army, which is saving Egyptians from terrorism”.

As for the foreign reaction, of the forces that supported the Muslim Brotherhood, the most active actions were taken by Turkey; its prime minister condemned the “military coup” and called for an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council in connection with the events in Egypt. This position of Turkey is quite predictable, since its current leadership comes from the Turkish Muslim Brotherhood and the loss of an ally in the person of President Morsi means the collapse of Turkish foreign policy, oriented to an alliance with Islamist forces in the Arab world. The King of Jordan, where the influence of Islamists is increasing, supported the new regime in Egypt. Qatar spoke in favour of Islamists in Egypt, while Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait supported the new Egyptian government.

The USA turned out to be in the most uncomfortable situation. Before the beginning of the operation, carried out by the Egyptian army, a delegation of U.S. “mediators”, headed by the Republican Senator John McCain arrived in Egypt. Moreover, its position was announced in advance, “Morsi is the legitimately elected president, and the army should not interfere in the political process”. Naturally, such “mediation” had no success. During the clashes of the forces of law and order with the supporters of Morsi, the United States was fiercely criticized by both the supporters of Morsi, and his opponents. In this regard, President Obama was forced to announce that “the U.S. does not support any of the parties in Egypt”. However, later the United States condemned the actions of the army and the imposition of the state of emergency in Egypt.

The most odious was the joint statement of the Prime Minister of England, D. Cameron, and the French President, François Hollande, in which they actually supported the Muslim Brotherhood, condemned “the actions of the Egyptian authorities” and called to “elaborate a common rigid position of the EU states against Egypt”.

Russia for its part has called for an early end of the confrontation and a political settlement of the civil conflict in Egypt.

Summing up the preliminary results, we can say that the split in the Egyptian society continues. However, political Islam is unlikely to return to power in Egypt, even with the support of external forces. Thus, the success of the Tamarrud Revolution and the defeat of political Islam in Egypt mark a new stage in the development of the “Arab Spring”, and in the situation in the Arab world. The change of power in Egypt promotes it to the rank of such countries as Algeria, Syria, Iraq, which are fighting against radical Islamism. The fact that political Islam lost control in Egypt greatly weakens its position in the region. Tamarrud revolutions could take place in other countries of the Arab Spring, as political Islam has shown its complete failure in solving socio-economic problems and brought a worsening of inter-religious conflict and political terrorism.

Boris Dolgov, PhD of Historical Sciences, researcher at the Centre for Arab and Islamic Studies under the Institute of Oriental Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, – exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The situation around Syria has gone out of control after the announcements about the chemical weapons usage on August 21. According to some reports, the number of people hurt is estimated to be around 1 thousand people.

The head of the Syrian radical opposition Ahmad Assi Jabra was quick to push blame on the Syrian authorities and demanded the international community in the capacity of the United States, England and France to act immediately. Moreover Ahmad presented its Western allies with a long list of targets to be leveled to the ground right away. In their turn, the Western leaders were quick to accept these claims, waiting for no investigation whatsoever, and started to threaten Syria with air strikes and bombardments.

The Syria President Bashar Assad rejected all blames by calling them “an insult to the common sense”. From a political viewpoint, as well as from the military one, an attack with chemical weapons carried out by the Syrian regular troops is an absurd. The Syrian generals have conducted a number of extremely successful operations, cleansing whole cities from rebels. Therefore they have no reason whatsoever to resort to WMDs, especially in the crowded areas where the Syrian regular troops are stationed. The Syrian authorities admitted that they have found evidence that it were the rebels who launched an attack against the regular troops and civilians. The National TV have shown the footage demonstrating the containers with chemical substances marked “made in Saudi Arabia” and the gas-masks marked “made in the USA” lying in the underground tunnels taken from the rebels minutes ago.

It was Carla Del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor of United Nations international criminal law tribunals that first observed that: “in this case there are more evidence against the Syrian rebels than the regular troops”. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that “the acusations against the Assad regime are absolutely absurd” and initiated the UN inspection in Syria. But the United States wasn’t willing to wait and see what the UN inspection could have found in Syria, the White House representatives said they have the sufficient amount of clues against the Assad regime so the United States won’t need an UN approval to launch a military attack against Syria. At the same time the Obama administration announced that they want to postpone the Geneva-2 meeting preparations they were carrying out  with the Russian side, the meeting was originally scheduled on August 28. The Syrian shores are surrounded by three carriers battle groups that are cappable to unleash hundreds and hundreds of bombs and cruise misiles against the Syrian troops. The Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs warned the White House that the American military intervention in Syria may have grave consiquences. He reminded that: “all the previous cases of the American agression, may it be Iraq or Libya, have worsen the political climate in these countries, causing violence, as the terrorist activities increased and spread across the region”.

It’s cristal clear that the anti-Syrian propaganda based on the myth of the usage of the chemical weapons by the Assad regime is a planned operation. The aim of this operation is relatively simple – to put a hault to the peace talks in Syria and provide an excuse for military intervention. The thing is – this operation was executed extremly poorly, since the masterminds behind it were quite sure that “it will do like this” since it was to be supported by NATO. One can’t help but remember the same foul play with Sadam Hussein’s imaginary weapons of mass destruction that allowed the West to invade Iraq in 2003. Should one remind you how the United States resorted to the wide array of chemical weapons in Vietnam, which resulted in tens of thousands of Vietnamese people suffering from chronic illnesses today. Therefore the true interest of the NATO forces in Syria, despite all claims about the protection of the civilians, is the toppling of Bashar Assad. When Syria is done, the NATO forces may proceed to the desctruction of Iran along with supressing Hezbollah in Lebanon. It’s only natural that Israel supports this kind of plan, since the destruction of the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah alliance is of such strategical importance for this country that it outweighs the prospects of having radical Islamists in control of Syria.

At the same time the United States strives to show “who’s the boss”, since the world’s perception of this country as a “sole superpower” has recently been in decline for a number of reasons. The major one – is the support the White House provides to the Sunni’s “political Islam”. The American dimplomants were massacred in Libya in 2012 by the same radical Islamists the White House was supporting in the anti-Gaddafi war. They’ve supported  the toppled Morsi which caused both the Egyptian military and the Muslim Brotherhood representatives to criticize Washington. The amusing inability to bring down the Assad regime, which the President Obama condemned back in 2011 as “non-legitimate”. And finally the “Snowden case” and the Russian role in it. Edward Snowden has managed to show the world how the paranoid Pentagon spies on most anybody in this world. All of these have spoiled the United States’ public image big time. The possible military intervention in Syria – is only a step down the path of destroying the regional independent sources of power and stability, following Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. It seems that the United States are true to their favorite formula: “smaller countries are easier to govern (and bully)”.

The possible NATO agression against Syria may have grave consiquences indeed. If one is to take into consideration that the Syrian army is one of the most well-organized and well equiped entities on the Middle East, the NATO attack won’t be anything like a pleasant walk in a park. The conflict should spread across the region, and Iran, Lebanone, Iraq and, quite possibly, the palestinian forces. Israel will found itself in a hot spot, and it may and will not only be attacked by the regular troops, the terrorist are bound to say their word in this conflict.

Russia has been doing its best to prevent the agression through all the dimplomatical means possible. Must the agression actually occur, this will mean that the White House has admitted that from now on it will completely ignore Russia, China, Iran and the list goes on. Should the Assad regime fall, Syria will become an infinite source of instability and terrorism, causing disturbances in the region. In this regard it is only logical for the major players to enchase the support of the Assad regime, providing it with all the necessary weapons to protect itself against the dogs of war. This is the only measure to save the innocent lives of Syrian people.

 The selfish hegemonism of the White House policy goes against all norms of the international law. Russia should demand that the United States provides evidence, if there’s any, to support their claims. If there’s no evidence to be provided, than the UN Security Council must condemn the United States as an agresssor.

Boris  Dolgov, Cand. Sc. (History), is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Arabic and Islamic Studies of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This article was written exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The anti-government armed groups, which have carried out a wide range of terrorist attacks, include the most extremist forces of radical Islam — al-Qaeda among them. Yet the leading countries of NATO have declared that they support the radical Syrian opposition, and that support includes supplying it with weapons. Unfortunately, the Arab League has taken the same position and essentially transformed itself into an instrument of the Persian Gulf monarchies’ anti-Syria policies.

The NATO countries have assigned Turkey a significant role in their plans for regime change in Syria. Smuggled weapons for the radical Syrian opposition bought with Saudi Arabian and Qatari money pass through Turkey. It is clearly no coincidence that the armed Syrian opposition’s command center is located in the Turkish town of Adana (100 kilometers from the Syrian-Turkish border) near the military base in Incirlik that houses US military and intelligence personnel.

The most active antigovernment group, Jabhat al-Nusrah, confirmed in April 2013 that it is affiliated with al-Qaeda. Its leaders also said that once they overthrow the Bashar al-Assad regime, their top goal will be to attack Israel. According to the Western and Arab media, statements like that have evidently led the United States to train their “own” fighters in Jordan for operations in Syria against both its leaders and, possibly, against the radical Islamists should they attack Israel.

The situation is resulting in the formation of a hotbed of extremism and terrorism in Syria and causing its spread both within the region and beyond it. It has caused sectarian clashes between the supporters and opponents of President Assad, exacerbated the domestic political situation in Lebanon, increased terrorist activities by radical Sunni Islamists in Iraq, and energized extremism in Turkey.

The desire of leading NATO countries to utilize radical Islamism to overthrow undesirable regimes is particularly noteworthy. On the one hand, the West is fighting radical Islam in Afghanistan, Yemen and Mali. It was supporting Islamist forces in Libya against Gadhafi, and it is currently supporting those same Islamists in order to overthrow President Assad. This strategy can only mean that the West expects that it will be able to manipulate the “jihad” of radical Sunni Islamism after regime change in Syria for use against Shiite Iran, which is gaining influence in Iraq, and against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The next objective of this strategy will surely be the CIS Central Asian republics and, finally, the North Caucasus, southern Russia and the Muslim regions of the Volga River basin and the Urals. Moreover, the conditions for such a development in these regions are already coming together: Terrorist activities by radical Islamists are being energized there. A large number of people from these areas are fighting alongside the armed Syrian opposition.

However, that is largely a deluded strategy. Radical Islam is anti-West by its nature and ideology. All of its ideologues, from Sayyda Qutb to al-Zawahiri, have said as much. It may form a tactical alliance with the West to achieve its own goals, but afterwards it is bound to oppose the West. History and recent international developments both confirm that. In an effort to weaken the Soviet Union during the Afghan civil war of the 1980s, the United States supported the “jihad” of bin Laden and al-Qaeda, which he headed, against the pro-Soviet Afghan government. After achieving its goal, however, bin Laden turned his “jihad” against the United States, calling it “enemy No. 1,” which resulted in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In September 2012, American diplomats, including the US ambassador, were killed in Libya by Islamist fighters from the Brigades of Allah, which had taken part in the overthrow of Gadhafi, i.e., they were killed by those the United States had helped bring to power in Libya.

France has also faced harmful fallout from its involvement in the military overthrow of Libya’s government, which led to the uncontrolled spread of weapons in the region and let them fall into the hands of radical extremists who have harmed French citizens. In 2012, for example, a radical Islamist of Algerian origin who held French citizenship shot three French soldiers, two students and a teacher at a Jewish school. In early 2013, Islamist fighters executed a French citizen they accused of espionage. In 2013 Islamist militants in Algeria seized 100 foreign experts, including French citizens, some of whom were killed. French troops in Mali are still fighting Islamist terrorists in 2013 who are threatening to seize the country’s capital. However, it is obvious that the crisis in Mali and the arrival there of Tuareg rebels and Islamists is a direct consequence of the collapse of the Gadhafi regime, which had successfully kept radical Islamism in check and had fought it relentlessly. Thus, France has had to deal with the mess left by the government of former President Nicolas Sarkozy, who was one of the chief movers and shakers in Gadhafi’s overthrow. That makes us wonder about the accusation leveled by Gadhafi’s son Seif al-Islam in a live television broadcast just before the NATO intervention in 2011. He said Sarkozy had received 15 million euros from the Libyan leadership for his 2007 election campaign. I would like to believe that the investigation launched by the French Prosecutor’s Office in April 2013 will be objective and transparent.

Despite all these lessons, however, France’s current leaders are actively involved in the NATO operation to overthrow Assad and are directly supporting the Syrian opposition, which French intelligence is training. Paris is even in the process of deciding to supply the opposition with arms even though radical Islamists are known to form the opposition’s core. It turns out that in Syria France is supporting the same forces it is fighting in Mali.

Finally, I should mention the recent tragic events of April 2013 in the United States: the terrorist attack at the international Boston Marathon in which people were killed and more than 170 were wounded, and the poison-containing letters that were sent to a member of Congress and to President Barack Obama. The terrorism that has now reached America has its origin in those regions where the West and particularly the United States are trying to utilize it to achieve their own foreign policy goals.

Fighting extremism and terrorism and preventing its spread is the shared task of the international community, especially those countries most capable of doing so. Their attempt to play a “game” with extremist forces and use them for their own purposes is a dangerous mistake, and it may rebound against the players themselves.

That is particularly true of the Syrian crisis, which can only be resolved by political means. Much depends on all sides having a clear understanding that it is dangerous and unacceptable to divide terrorists into “the good ones — ours” and “the bad ones — theirs,” and that all forms of terrorism must be fought jointly.

Boris  Dolgov, Cand. Sc. (History), is a Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Arabic and Islamic Studies of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This article was written expressly for New Eastern Outlook.