By Editor in Chief: Ali Kassem
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The approaches of the Turkish regime that followed Tehran summit were not be surprising or unlikely, especially as things reached their ends. The due moment declared itself. It has been forced to reveal what it has hidden, whether its defending terrorist organizations or additions coming from outside the text by its existential presence in the system of aggression besides its role drawn by the Western and American decision-making circles in particular, where it failed in the test of intentions revealing its true position by emulating the Western positions of that role, standing behind it and expressing clearly its support expressing the meaning of that in the political calculations and diplomatic readings.
The issue is not only related to the position of Idlib and the bombing factors that were the main reason for the emergence of the differences, which the language of diplomacy couldn't obscure or hide. It is in the details of the track of the Turkish role agreed with Washington, which promoted it through creating crises and bombing paths. It was given the opportunity to hinder the understandings that were ultimately reliable, so as to resolve the options and priorities, especially at this serious stage.
The stalemates that emerged at Tehran summit were not devoid of calculations of the Turkish role and the head of its regime, which publicly emerged in the fundamental difference in the approach, and perhaps in the political motives that directly affected the trends that prevailed over the last period, preventing the collapse of the track, and even contributed to its development up to the results achieved in more than one place. It was recorded for the Russian and Iranian diplomats their ability to mimic reality and to take registered steps to them, especially in the hard tests that they professionally passed.
The Turkish regime understands that the language of appeasement is an opportunity through which it can emulate its relationship with terrorist organizations. It may be a gateway to begin whitening its page, and perhaps at a later stage, it may be a project of salvation from the accumulations of this relationship that has become burdensome threatening its future and existence. However, longing to the relation with the American and to its functional role in the service of the Western agendas, was prevailed, leading Astana and then Tehran summit to a way which is doomed of a lot of obstacles, and perhaps faced politically uncalculated difficulties.
The dilemma is that the Turkish regime was locked in the tensed scene. It seems that the sinking that accompanied it at the beginning is continuing to the end. It is hastening that end because of considerations related to the details of the regional and international equations beside the open lines of confrontation in which the head of the Turkish regime has become an American arm extending everywhere through terrorist organizations it has supported from the very beginning and desperately defending them until the end. These organizations don't hide their rely on the Turkish arm as an additional pretext for the political absurdity through which Washington imitates its options in spreading chaos and ruin, up to its futile maneuvers of direct hostile character, to move mercenaries and tools at a suspicious timing.
Idlib will not be an exception. It will be like other cities and towns that swept terrorism away from their land. Idlib will do it by its cities, towns and villages, whether the Turkish regime accepts or rejects, and whether the Western anger outbursts or inflames, the decision is settled, and terrorism is to be doomed. The facts on the ground will take care of the details, as they did with others before and what to come.
Translated by Amal Suleiman Ma'rouf