No place to chance in the Syrian field, is behind the withdrawal from the desert Daesh deal?

No place to chance in the Syrian field, is behind the withdrawal from the desert Daesh deal?



29/03/2017


Direction Press / Agencies
The possibility of coincidence in the Syrian field. Regional and international Valmadlat very complex, which weighed this field underneath which made it impossible occurrence of any order no matter how small and insignificant without Taatlty behind a number of motives and interests of the various stakeholders in it.
How the case if the event is a degree of strategic importance and respect, above all, organized by «Daesh» which is unanimous in the world to fight and compete for many parties to inherit the land controlled by? The possibility of coincidence here may be almost non-existent. But it certainly will become non-existent when we are in front of a scene through which the organization Daesh implementation of successive withdrawals and accelerated from the great importance of some areas, without any fighting and in the absence of a positive necessity?

There is no doubt that it would be naive to interpret these superficial reasons for withdrawals or rely on the novel as the armed factions which forced the organization to withdraw within a few hours, while they were unable for years to stop the advance of regulation in those same areas.

In such cases, there are no complex calculations Taatlty behind her motives and interests, but it must be «behind the hill behind».
This leads us to the subject of sudden withdrawals by the organization «Daesh» from areas in the eastern Qalmoun and another in the Syrian desert, a few days ago, in a quiet scene does not inspire the atmosphere of the battles are usually organized to hold on land controlled. What hillock behind these withdrawals? Is it a coincidence or necessity forced the organization to it, or it bigger and more complex than that?

Some argue that the organization had to do these withdrawals because of the enormous pressures faced in Iraq and Syria, where he is fighting on several fronts against strong opponents, they believe that the organization has become suffers from a problem in the number of fighters and can not spread over large areas, so began to withdraw from some areas to assemble its components in hot fronts.

This team supports the view that after the expulsion of «Far Soldiers» from spreading areas in Idlib and Hama and the desert, lost the organization «Daesh» another corridor was used to deliver supplies to the control areas in the desert and Qalmoun, which pressure increased on it, especially after the armed factions launched against him my campaign «Srzina horses» and «the expulsion of prostitutes», and found it not before his confrontation in the absence of supply lines that led him to withdraw.

But there is a second team has a completely different perspective. Where this team does not hide that the withdrawal of «Daesh» was not such as weakness and collapse, but was the result of negotiations. In this context, the former leader said in the «Front victory» Abu Mohammed Saleh al-Hamwi, and he was «Amir Hama» and a member of the Shura Council, to «the Islamic factions to negotiate with Daesh in order to persuade him to withdraw from Syria whole and to go to Iraq, as opposed to taking him what he wants from fighters and immigrants and weapons »and added Hamwi in his tweets on his account on« Twitter »that« Daesh stipulated several conditions for approval of the withdrawal, but factions rejected »and thus the negotiations ended, according to Hamwi.

It should be noted that, despite Hamwi isolated from the «Front victory» is still familiar with the scenes of events by virtue of its relations complex, and his former position as «Amir Hama» qualifies him particularly to see a lot of shadows that are going on in the desert and the sectors in which the factions.

However, the failure of negotiations on the withdrawal of all its regions in Syria does not mean that there is the possibility of negotiations with Daesh regarding withdrawal from certain areas. This was confirmed by opposition activist Abdullah Abdul Karim, a city of two villages in the countryside of Homs, near Mahsa area, which is the last major strongholds Daesh which did not withdraw from them. Activist not only with reference to the existence of an agreement but said that he had information about the parties to the agreement and its content, he said in a tweet on his account on Twitter that «the withdrawal of the organization Daesh of the Badia was in agreement with a party to have reservations to be named at the moment». On the content of the agreement activist said that the withdrawal of the organization will not be limited to the desert and Qalmoun but will also include. «Hama countryside east» But why does the organization of these broad withdrawals? Activist answered because the agreement stipulated that «the party agreed with the organization is committed to securing arms and sent to the organization through intermediaries» pointing out that «does not mean the existence of an agreement between the organization and between the mediators but only the intersection of interests».

It should be more than two lines placed under the term «interests of the intersection» because they indicate the existence of the goals and dimensions of this agreement may go beyond the subject of withdrawal from some areas, to seek to create a new reality in which materialize the interests of both parties.

Here should refer to what the activist about the inclusion of the countryside east of Hama in agreement, because the withdrawal Daesh of its regions in the eastern countryside will mean that the armed factions will have a supply line stretching from the Turkish border in the north down to the areas where the organization pulled out of them in the desert near the Jordanian border in the south . This may be the interest of the factions behind the agreement because the support channels that have long blocked them by the cordon imposed by the Syrian army during the past few years, will return to it and increase its strength.

The question arises, why do you need backed by Jordan and Washington factions to open the supply line with Turkey while on the Jordanian border and can receive support from the nearest distance? Then against those who would fight if you get enough support? Do you fight against Daesh which agreed with him through a third party (which the activist did not mention of being) or against the Syrian army risk in this case to clash with Russia as an ally of Damascus and a guarantor of the cease-fire?

These questions bring us back to the beginning to say that no place is encountered in the Syrian field, but with the assurance that behind the hill behind, whether ratified or activist information has not ratified.
Source / agencies

http://aletejahtv.org/permalink/157399.html