Alwaght- An array of developments has followed the Russian and US-brokered deal on ceasefire in Syria. It drew its own supporters and also opponents. The odd thing about the truce accord is Washington's insistence that the terms of the deal must remain undisclosed despite Moscow�s pressures for publishing them. Furthermore, the Security Council's expected meeting on the agreement was cancelled surprisingly.


These issues and others made topics for Alwaght News and Analysis interview with the Syrian journalist and political analyst Sharif Shehadeh.


Alwaght: What keeps the US from implementing its part in its deal with Russia about Syria ceasefire, is it unable or it doesn't want to do so?


Shehadeh: First, we need to know that the negative role of the US in the Syrian crisis appeared since its beginning. It now deepened and became even clearer, particularly after Russia obliged it to go to a deal that it has been escaping from for two years. Actually, Moscow finally made Washington to make it clear if it is with terrorism or against it. The US has signed the agreement but so far declined to implement any of its parts because it never wanted to implement it because it supports the terrorist groups as it is becoming clearer. It calls them moderate rebels. Russia pressed the US to draw a line between the moderate opposition as it brands them and the armed groups. But Washington hasn't done so and it will not. Therefore, the US insists on buying and selling (allies) all the time and so doesn't want to make an obvious political deal in which a distinction is drawn between the terrorists and non-terrorists. That's why Washington doesn't want implementation of the agreement.


Alwaght: Do you think that the Americans were made to sign ceasefire deal with Russia because of political embarrassment and public opinion's pressures? Or they agreed to play in extra time to help the armed groups to reorganize particularly after big losses they received in Aleppo battle?�


Shehadeh: First of all I should note that the US presidential election is now very close, and just few months left to it. The current US administration does not want to hand over a legacy of surrender to the next administration. Rather, it wants to pass to it some small gains. So it is not interested to sign deal and so go under commitments. Additionally, Washington is backing the terrorist groups. I'm surprised to see the world believe that the US wants fighting the terrorists. On the contrary, the US sponsors terrorism and backs it. It launches operations in favor of the terrorists, otherwise, how ISIS, al-Nusra Front, and other terrorist groups are funded? In general, I think that the Russians forced the US to sign such a deal. Washington was forced to do so in conditions the Russians are well aware of. So, the US doesn't want to publicize the agreement's terms. We saw the UN Security Council cancelled its session because Washington doesn't want an open discussion of the deal. This is the US and this is its policies. I never get surprised to see as such. The world should know that the US is involved in terrorism, and backs it, and escapes any agreement to battle terrorism.


Alwaght: As you said, the UN Security Council meeting on Syria ceasefire deal was cancelled. Do you think that there is an international tendency to evade such commitments to Syria?�


Shehadeh: As everyone knows, the West as a whole is in league with the US and follows its orders. Therefore, when Washington dislikes, everyone disappears and when it likes, everyone shows up. I set no hopes on the Western world because it bows to the US dictates and its specific interests. So, what we see concerning the Syrian crisis is in fact a real pain suffered by the West and the US in particular.


Alwaght: Concerning the publishing of the terms of Russia-US deal on ceasefire, why is Washington opposing it this assertively? Does publishing make Washington obliged to its terms implementation?


Shehadeh: There are two reasons for (US) escaping. First, the US will be obliged to implement its terms in front of the whole world. Second, Washington is disallowed to intervene in President Bashar al-Assad's fate. Actually, the decision was left to the Syrian people. The same thing is also true about the transitional period and other matters. So the US has lost its bets on what it has been saying for five years. In fact, it is embarrassed in front of the Americans and the American public opinion, as well as its allies. The US proved to the world that it is lying. It talks about removal of President Assad in public but hides this in secrets for a simple reason: anti-terror agreements conflict with its interests. Assad�s fate is not in its hands. I must say that it is not in interests of the US to publish the deal terms. It seems that it wants to make it public only after the present administration leaves office.


Alwaght: We noticed a change in tone of some of the Arab states, particularly the Persian Gulf Arab states, towards the US after its Syria ceasefire accord with Russia. They began opening old and sensitive cases between the two sides and criticized Washington. How do you see this?


Shehadeh: The student follows his teacher in everything and the proxy follows his master. The Persian Gulf Arab states are proxies. They clearly follow (the US) and are idiots obviously. They follow without asking. What we see about the Arab states is a clear picture of their reality. The reality is they are groups that rose to power in a known way, they inherited power, they don't understand, they don't learn, they don't get civilized. Even the proxies need to be civilized to learn their role, but they are proxies in their idiocy. So, we don't get surprised by any of their stances.


They bristled at the US and the reason is the issue of stay of President Assad in power. They want his removal and own nothing but words. They think that politics bow to cash. They think that what they spend will overthrow Assad, and with bigger money they can remove other governments. They think that everything is obtainable by money. Concerning the US position on Assad, they paid the US to bring Assad down, but it failed. This is the reason behind their anger. But I think that the Persian Gulf states' stance is not worth talking about because it is worthless and changes nothing in the issue.


By Alwaght