While the cease-fire in Syria, drawn up by the US Secretary of State and his Russian counterpart, seemed to be holding – apart from the Israeli violations on the first day - the Pentagon attacked the Syrian Arab Army for the second time. Washington claimed it was a mistake, but the reaction of the US ambassador to the UNO, on the contrary, made it seem more like the execution of a plan. What game is Washington playing?

*

Even as it negotiated a cease-fire with the United States, Russia knew that they would not respect it any more than they had respected previous agreements. But Moscow was hoping to move ahead on the road to the recognition of a multipolar world. As for Washington, they played the card of the end of Obama’s Presidency to justify the implementation of a “last chance” agreement.

We shall leave to one side the Israeli attempt to profit from the truce to attack Damascus and the Golan. Tel-Aviv attracted a volley of new generation missiles, lost one plane and will have to repair a second. It seems that Syria now has the capacity to contest the Israeli domination of regional airspace.

We shall also leave to one side the European heads of state and governments, who applauded the agreement without knowing its content, and consequently covered themselves with ridicule.

We shall speak of facts - the UNO humanitarian convoy was stuffed with arms and ammunition. It is still waiting at the Turkish border, officially because the road is not safe, but unofficially because Syria is demanding that it be allowed to search the convoy before letting it pass. This UN trickery corresponds to the revelations of the ex-head of Turkish anti-terrorism, Ahmet Sait Yayla, who is currently in hiding - the Pentagon and Turkey use humanitarian convoys to arm the jihadists.

Then the Pentagon attacked a static Syrian position in Deir ez-Zor. It ceased its attack only when Russia alerted it to its “mistake”. And then it allowed the jihadists to pursue their attacks on the road it had opened for them.

Strategically speaking, preventing the Syrian Arab Army from liberating all of the governorate of Deir ez-Zor means maintaining Daesh in its role as an obstacle on the road linking Damascus-Baghdad-Teheran. In the past, the Pentagon had allowed Daesh to settle in Palmyra, the historical stage on the “Silk Road”. Today, this road is still cut by the jihadists on the Iraqi side, but could be by-passed via Deir ez-Zor if the Iraqis liberate Mossoul.

From the US point of view, the cease-fire agreement was simply a means of gaining time, supplying the jihadists and relaunching the war. Turning the situation around on the diplomatic front, Russia called for an emergency meeting of the Security Council, which caused panic in Washington. Indeed, this period not only coincides with the end of Obama’s mandate, but also with the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Manifestly nervous, the US ambassador to the Security Council, Samantha Power, left the Council room in the middle of the session in order to address a group of journalists. She was hoping that in this way, the first Press reports would relay only the US point of view. She therefore made ironic comments about the Russian “stunt” about what was, after all, just a simple live-fire “incident” (62 dead and a hundred wounded!) She then launched into a diatribe against the far more dastardly crimes committed by the Damascus régime. Warned about this manipulation, the Russian ambassador, Vitali Tchourkine, then left the Council room himself in order to share his point of view.

Prudently, the journalists, who had just been alerted by the British House of Commons to the lies of Madame Power concerning the alleged crimes of Mouamar Kadhafi, wrote up both sides of the story.

As from now, Russia will intensify its diplomatic advantage – the United States have been caught red-handed in treachery. Moscow could therefore use the General Assembly to announce its desire to finish with the jihadists. The US manipulation will turn against those who imagined it. Washington will have only two options left – either engage in an open confrontation, which it does not want, or accept that its protégés lose the game.

Courtesy Thierry Meyssan; Translation Pete Kimberley

Source Al-Watan (Syria)

http://www.voltairenet.org/article193367.html