After Mr. Kerry has visited Russia, the British Prime Minister David Cameron rushes to Moscow. For the same topic – Syria. The motto of these visits: “The violence continues to increase, so we need to quickly find a way out of this situation”.
The frequency of the leaders and top officials, who currently auditioning in Moscow, unequivocally begets by two facts: First, the situation in Syria is really changing altogether in favor of the legitimate Syrian government. If it goes on like this, then the situation will soon become irreversible if someone does not intervene quickly – the purely military crackdown of the “terroristic international” is quite likely.
Secondly, Iran has made no move to respond to the hints and winks of the U.S. and rejects a “back down”, ie still rejects a deal with the West – the corresponding statements of the Grand Ayatollah in February and March of this year are exemplary for this stance.
So one can actually largely shelve the here once made speculation. Although it was achieved that the Iran has made some concessions in the negotiations on the nuclear program, but it seems that this was not what the United States has really interested. The phase of the presidential elections in Iran has just started, but it is already clear that the reformers from the group of Rafsanjani actually have no chance. It does not seem that there will be huge changes in the politics of Iran. But it must be “worked” into this direction – the next chance won’t come quickly.
Kerry and Cameron have therefore offered some specific deals in Moscow. There is no other reason for their sudden appearances in Moscow. Anyway, it is truly not plausible that the sponsors of the aggression against Syria are suddenly concerned about the prevailing violence.
Namely, it is possible, that the Western “partners” of Russia are trying to “stick to the tried and true” scheme of the “Anglo-Saxon” policy under the guise of talks on Syria: on a particular issue, pressure is built up to threats, afterwards, they will unwillingly retire to the earlier positions and thereby, they will receive some concessions in an entirely different topic. Simple but proven for centuries.
Syria is too important for Russia. And a victory is even possible for Syria. Thus, the West must therefore threaten to throw the situation back into a total chaos even up to the scenario of a direct military intervention. But the actual target of the Americans is Iran. The United States and Britain are able to “give in” a bit in terms of Syria and thus obtain some assurances of neutrality for their actions in Iran.
The problem for Russia is that an “Iran crisis” will be launched most probably out of Azerbaijan. This is actually quite clear to notice from the reports of the past weeks and months. The Azerbaijani media began some clearly anti-Iranian campaigns quite accurate at the time of the start of this year’s presidential elections in Iran, or about the time of the commencement of the registration of candidates, where Iran is not directly displayed as enemy, but as a “difficult” neighbor”. The contents and false pretenses vary, currently it is about certain arrests of Azerbaijanis in Iran, based on allegations of espionage. Vesti.az wrote in terms of the tenor:
There, it is now just plain dangerous for Azerbaijanis. Each Azerbaijanis runs the risk of being taken as a hostage in Iran, and then, some confessions will be beaten out of him about connections to Mossad.. In the words of the analyst [the head of the Azerbaijani "ATLAS Center for Political Research" Elhan Schahinoglu - apxwn] are the words of Ahmadinejad about his love of Azerbaijan a pure lie … etc.
In the report by Vesti.az, senior military officials, former presidential advisers and other “big heads” are quoted in the same way. It looks like as they are making out of Iran in the eyes of the Azerbaijanis slowly and steadily to a spawn of hell. If the expected unrests (because they are planed) are successful in, while or after the presidential elections in Iran, to convey the impression of tortured, oppressed, genocided Iranian Azerbaijanis, so the ground for the usual “all options are on the table” is already prepared.
Certain Azerbaijani politicians are becoming active, especially those who have occurred just a year ago with the thesis that their country should be renamed in “North Azerbaijan” – as an analogy to North and South Korea, which is why there could also be North- and South Azerbaijan (ergo the current Iranian part), and West Azerbaijan (ie Armenia) likewise.
In short, the probability of provocations from the North is reality. And so back to Kerry and Cameron in Moscow and the things, what Russia would have to consider, if the Russian neutrality about the scheduled operations in Iran would be really the crux of the matter: Tensions in Transcaucasia will not stuck there, but inevitably spill over into North Caucasus, which is already fraught with tension. The United States would have to assure to the Azerbaijani leadership that Russia will remain neutral in any response to the operations inside Iran.
In this light, the Israeli attack on Damascus looks slightly different. Israel does not demonstrate Syria, but Russia, that – should the Russians be e.g. stubborn about the offers of Kerry and Cameron – the Israeli attacks against Syria will continue, even at the risk of a major regional conflict. Israel does not fear Syria, this is a fact. But it does need Iran for all one is worth. And it fears it.
The U.S., Britain and Israel are playing the same game. They cede Syria to Russia in exchange for Iran. The “exchange” would be quite unfavorable because the Syrian government has now truly fought itself free pretty well and the development is positive. But the aggressors must give the impression that they do not allow that. No matter how: “chemical weapons”, arming the “rebels”, direct attacks on the Syrian military and so on. A bluff. But very convincing.
The Israeli attack on Damascus is convincing. The arming of the “rebels”, resolved by the U.S. Congress, is it, too. Kerry and Cameron want to make Putin believe, that they will continue to put pressure on Syria and that they will even increase it. As soon as he believes it, they will offer him the exchange. Here, time is ticking away, the presidential elections in Iran are already at 14 June.
Can one trust “the West”? Of course, not. The pressure on Syria will continue, on one way or another. If not now, then later back again. At that, the simple expressed “exchange” of Syria for Iran is just to reject, of course. Iran is able to manage it on its own. Just like Syria. Unless they will be betrayed cynical, and this probably – as usual – without any benefits for the ones who betray them. Fallen for a bluff, which, however, comes very convincing.