Interview: Assad would win any free election in Syria

Nasim has held an online interview with the founder of Eric Draitser about the  Geneva II talks on Syrian issue and the role the US and its Middle Eastern allies play in the crisis.

UN chief Ban Ki-moon decided to withdraw his invitation of Iran to attend Syria peace talks under pressure by the United States. Now, many countries such as Australia, Japan, and Mexico have been invited to this conference but not Iran which has direct influences on Syria developments. What do you see as an outcome in this conference without Iran and what world powers will try to negotiate for?

– The rescinding by the UN of the invitation to Iran to attend to the Geneva II conference effectively guaranteed that the conference would be little more than a stage drama designed to convince the world that the US and its regional proxies and clients such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar actually desire peace.  Of course, the truth is that the Western imperial powers are actively sabotaging any prospects for peace in order to effect the regime change that they have sought all along.  The opposition and their backers in Riyadh, Doha, Tel Aviv and Washington understand perfectly well that they are not actually negotiating so much as attempting to dictate terms that are so unreasonable as to be rejected out of hand.  This is designed to give them free reign to unleash more devastation on the people of Syria in the name of “building democracy”.


Would the US surrender its objection about presence of Bashar Al-Assad in transitional government? What is your analysis about these issues?

– The US cannot under any circumstances allow Assad to participate in a transitional government of political process because they understand perfectly well that, given free elections, Assad would win by a wide margin.  This would utterly destroy the imperial designs for Syria and the region.  It is for this reason that Secretary Kerry insists upon the “Geneva Communiqué” which stated that Assad’s removal was a precondition for talks.  This is precisely what Tehran objected to and the primary reason they were not allowed to attend the conference.

As you know, the nuclear deal between Iran and world powers has started this week. What do you see for this deal’s outcome?

– Perhaps I’m slightly cynical but I don’t see anything good ultimately coming from nuclear deal.  Of course it might have some positive benefits in the near term insofar as it unfreezes some Iranian financial assets and eases some of the sanctions.  However, in the final analysis, the deal is going to benefit financiers and foreign investors as well as a very small portion of the most wealthy in Iran.  There is nothing in the deal, nor anything proposed, that would effectively deal with the endemic economic problems facing Iran such as inflation, unemployment, and staggering poverty among the lower socioeconomic classes, especially in the rural areas.  Though economic development is a good thing, the products of that development must be distributed throughout society, not just to the select few at the top. Otherwise, you have the US – rich get richer, poor get poorer.

By Nasim Online


The Iran Project is not responsible for the content of quoted articles.