TEHRAN (ISNA)- A US daily stressed that Iran-Russia participation is the only long-term solution to end the crisis in Syria and establish peace and calm in the country, adding that the US should end to arrogance towards the two countries.New York Times in an article by Anatol Lieven, a professor in the War Studies Department of Kings College London and a senior fellow of the New America Foundation in Washington, said the US should even raise its oppositions to Iran and Russia respectfully and stop arrogant and hypocritical hectoring towards them.
The full text of the article comes as follow:
All of this is well known to policy makers in Washington, which explains the US President Barack Obamas praiseworthy caution. What the administration now needs to do is to start thinking seriously about the real contours of a Syrian peace settlement, and to turn the Syrian crisis into an opportunity to rethink its overall strategy in the Middle East.
In the long run, if Syria is not to disintegrate as a country, there will have to be a peace settlement that guarantees the sharing of power among Syrias different ethno-religious groups. The participation of Russia, Iran and Iraq in such a settlement will obviously be essential.
Washington therefore needs to separate its immediate moral rhetoric in justifying an attack from the language it uses toward Moscow, Tehran and Beijing concerning Syria. It would be helpful in this regard for US officials to remember two facts.
The first is that Russias fears concerning the consequences of a rebel victory are neither wicked nor irrational, but are shared by very many analysts in the C.I.A., the State Department and Israel.
The second is that in 1988, when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Kurdish oppositions and Iranian troops, Washington remained carefully silent so as not to help the Iranian side in the war with Iraq.
That silence on Washingtons part does not justify inaction now; but it should certainly discourage demonization of those who for legitimate reasons fear the consequences of US actions in Syria. US language toward Moscow, Tehran and Beijing should be characterized by respectful disagreement, not arrogant and hypocritical hectoring.
The importance of Russia to the conflict in Syria lies both in its links to the Baath regime, and its good relations with Iran. A deeply negative consequence of the intensifying Syrian crisis has been to undermine the possibility of a new dialogue with Iran that was opened by the victory of the moderate President Hassan Rouhani in the June elections.
He also warned of an anti-Iranian alliance with Arab dictators supporting Syrian armed rebels and said this alliance sits badly with Americas own secular and democratic values, with Americas commitment to a Shiite-dominated government in Iraq and with Americas hopes for progress in the Muslim world. The sponsorship of extremism by some of these states poses a threat to American security, and their pathological hatred for Shiism has contributed to deepening the Middle Easts disastrous sectarian divides.
Using Moscow to develop new relations with Iran is therefore necessary not only for a resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue and (eventually) of the Syrian conflict, but also in the long run for the restoration of basic stability in the Middle East.
Of course, a Syrian peace settlement will be terribly difficult to achieve, and will probably not be achievable.
Nonetheless, the basic contours of any long-term settlement are already clear, as is the need for Iranian and Russian participation. While sending a strong military signal to Damascus and other regimes to never again use chemical weapons, Washington should at the same timeintensify attempts to lay the diplomatic basis for this eventual settlement.
By ISNA
The Iran Project is not responsible for the content of quoted articles.
