NOVANEWS
The Liberation of Homs, Beginning of the End of the Aggression Against Syria
The Liberation of Homs
Negotiations on the liberation of Homs began in early March. That was two months ago. It was implemented from May 7 to 9. Combatants and civilians who supported them, a total of 2,250 people, were allowed to leave the city on buses. They could take with them small arms and personal belongings. The document states that the windows of the bus should be tinted or covered by curtains. An Iranian representative was on board each vehicle. The convoy was escorted by police to a rebel area twenty kilometers to the north.
Homs, described by NATO and GCC propaganda as the “heart of the revolution”, is returned to the authority of the Republic, without blood being shed. Its liberation marks the end of the takfisriste project in Syria. Upon entering the old town, Syrian soldiers discovered several mass graves in which the jihadists threw their victims.
Curtains hid fighters from news reporters. We do not know how many were foreign officers. The only thing certain is that they are French and Saudis, with some Americans. They abandoned their heavy weapons. They were to continue their journey and be exfiltrated by Turkey. The Syrian government is committed not to speak publicly about the presence of foreign officers, but it is an open secret for journalists who approached civilians.
If the presence of Saudis is not surprising, that of the French and Americans is. Paris had formally severed contacts with jihadists in Syria since its intervention in Mali, in January 2013 , against other jihadists. So much for severing, although these contacts were more discreet. As for the Americans, they have a reputation for leaving the ship to their allies when the weather turns bad. Yet there they were.
Henceforth, the question is what is the intention of NATO and the GCC. It seems that the Nicaraguan style war is over. Perhaps because the Republic resisted, perhaps because it was becoming increasingly difficult to find candidates for jihad. Washington would fall back on simple support for its Syrian employees. From this point of view, the liberation of Homs corresponds to an escalation against Damascus. For the past week, rockets rain down on the capital, causing many casualties. Given the balance of power within the population, the outcome of the war leaves no doubt and will be speedy. Bashar Assad should be democratically elected by a large majority of his fellow citizens on June 3, and the war should slowly end, its funding being provided only until September.
The campaign led by Washington to dissuade jihadists from going back to NATO countries suggests that a new purpose will be found for them. For over a year, the Russian Federation has been convinced that it will be the next target of Westerners. So, it prepares for a new shock, even if it does not know where it will happen exactly.
Moreover, the liberation of Homs turns the page on the project of domination of Arab countries by the Muslim Brotherhood. While they were, since 2007, the privileged interlocutors of the State Department, and Washington had placed them in power in Turkey, Qatar, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and elsewhere, they are now in reflux. Those who the academic, Robert S. Leiken, described in 2005 as moderates capable of governing an Islamized Arab world on behalf of the United States, have been or are being rejected or dismissed from all countries where they hold power.
Finally, the victory of Homs hints at the possibility of a future rivalry between Iran and Russia. It is clear that if Washington had confidence in Tehran in this case, it is because the two states have previously entered into a comprehensive agreement. It seems that the United States is remaking Iran Constable of the area, as it was at the time of the Shah. In this perspective, military assistance to Hezbollah, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Palestinians should decrease slightly. Tehran should push its allies toward compromise. In exchange, Washington could give it free rein in Iraq, Syria and even Lebanon. It would follow that Shiism which, since Ayatollah Khomeini, was an anti-imperialist force would become once again just a way for Iran to assert its identity and its influence. This development would ruin Russian-US projects in the region. But can they still be envisaged after the Ukrainian crisis ?
