Syrian Crisis, Within Nature/International Anarchy Clash

Syrian crisis, within Nature/International anarchy clash

Everyone acknowledges that the United States position was strange towards the bloody events in Syria, timing and whole achieved manner that West intervene in Libya, which had a similar mode for what happens in Syria makes us keep many question marks.
And so, I'll have to analyze this problem at a broader level of geographical constituency of Syrian conflict, beyond geographical boundaries of this country, because the deduction of the bloody war and massacres that exterminate Syrian people cannot be understood, except by addressing conflict on broad international level too.
And since the issue is addressed at the level of America and Europe on the one hand and, on the other hand, Russia, Iran and China, we rather must touching nature of the relationship between these two major thrusts in control of the situation.
And initially focusing on the Iranian nuclear controversy as an analysis tool for access to identify the nature of the relationship between all these conflict-related actors.
“Iran is "strategic goal" of the United States”, the report of the well-known journalist Seymour Hirsch Peter Phillip from "DW" after the invasion of Iraq, warning in his commentary of the logic of war and force in American politics.
But the threat was not known implementation until writing these lines, that lasted more than nine years, why procrastinated America in its military campaign against Iran?
Sure that US State taxed in its occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, they faced great pressure to get out of this mud, and it drained financially and humanly, with very much effect on its economy, these factors were important reasons for not providing US war on Iran, as a rational alternative, but these considerations may not be compelling, on the grounds that American realism does not give consideration to any matter as comparable or above its national security, which is based on the global geopolitical situation, and especially, US will never Allow to any nation in the Middle East or in Neighborhood area, having a military ambition to transcend the Israeli one's superiority , and that's what was said in President Barack Obama's address, so we'll try to de-mystify this US policy.
Key turning point was the victory of the Iranian presidential election, in which Rafsanjani falls, and boarded their hard-line conservative.
This shift resulted the Declaration on Iran is determined to resume sensitive nuclear activities, and indifference to convert its nuclear file to the Security Council threatens to escalate a new major international crisis.
The Iranian ruling elite are trying to cope with threats and greater regional role.
This Iranian escalation came after the arrival of Ahmadi nejad to power and fall moderate reformers who distinguished themselves in their dealings with the European Union, especially with regard to the nuclear file.
This Iranian alteration has impacted on the European position, which was somewhat lenient with the Iranians, and it perhaps was the shift which served the United States aims toward European foreign policy, fearing the independent European policy toward Iran, since years ago.
And what happened will strengthen American gambit to put pressure on Iran, unless they cede their strategic military superiority ambition in the strategic area.
And perhaps this partial interpretation demonstrates some features of US policy toward Iran, but that followed remained vague, because political behavior and statements, as well as events have not gone in one direction.
Iran, which helped the United States in invading two neighboring countries which are Afghanistan and Iraq, and put under bet that national security, dare in the same time to the United States and Europe, by draft nuclear threat to US interests in the region.
In addition, the principle of allowing international observers access to Iranian nuclear facilities swung between acceptance and rejection, not to mention the conflicting Iranian statements every time about cooperation or objection to Western demands, this western behavior was not the same toward Sadam’s Iraqian regime.
And it’s important to include here the Iranian statement on 25-03-2012 “ end of dictates era from the United States, and its preaching trusteeship”.

And on the other side: • An important statement of American foreign policy toward Ira: A CIA report which said that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.
This report published by the New York Times added that US intelligence analysts believe that there is no compelling evidence that Iran had decided to produce a nuclear bomb, the same conclusion reached in 2007, confirmed that Iran had abandoned its nuclear program.
This is a radical change from the previous intelligence assessments that Iran is moving towards making a nuclear bomb.
The last national intelligence assessment is a formal consensus of all 16 American intelligence agencies.
• However, the newspaper emphasizes that there is no difference between US and Israeli intelligence that Iran was enriching nuclear fuel and infrastructure necessary to make a nuclear bomb, but US intelligence believes that Iran has not resumed its military which apparently stopped in 2003.
However, we note on this inconsistency and not set in the declarations of the parties that it's linked to regional events and issues of interests to both sides, we try to deduce the parameters of this variant through the issue of the Syrian revolution.