Alexander Krylov: Fight against Assad through external support of the
opposition will continue to the last drop of the Syrian blood
Interview of Alexander Krylov, President of the Scholarly Society of
Caucasologists at the Institute of World Economy and International
Relations, Russian Academy of Sciences, with ArmInfo News Agency
by David Stepanyan
arminfo
Friday, August 3, 17:42
The U.S. experts say that Iran will be on the verge of creating a
nuclear bomb in 18 months. Then the United States will deliver a blow
on Iran. How possible is it and is the nuclear program of Iran the
only reason for which Washington wants to deal shortly with the
Ayatollah power?
The date of an attack on Iran has been announced for many times. Yet
ten years ago at a conference in Istanbul the American political
experts ‘close to the U.S. Administration’ declared that the only
thing Washington thought of after occupation of Iraq was where to go
next: either to Iran or to Syria. Then the nuclear threat by Iran was
not so relevant as the idea of U.S. politicians to tighten energy like
a ‘running knot’ around the neck of China. They thought that in 15
years China would constitute real threat to the USA’s interests.
Obviously, Iran’s nuclear program is just a link in the chain of the
U.S. priorities in the Near East and Middle East, with the energy
factor being a top priority. The concerns about the Iranian nuclear
program are not groundless. Iran’s neighbors, Pakistan and India, had
long ago obtained nuclear weapons. It is not a secret that Israel also
did it. External threat from the USA, Israel, NATO and their allies is
as big for Iran as the Arab threat for Israel. In such situation, it
would be strange if the Iranian leadership did not strive to have
nuclear weapons like neighboring Pakistan and India, Israel, North
Korea and others.
Is the military operation the only way to neutralize Iran or are there
any other ways, for instance, the factor of `Southern Azerbaijan’?
There may be no military operation against Iran if the U.S.
Administration manages to achieve its goals through destabilizing the
domestic political situation in Iran, changing the power in that
country and making it its ally. There are many scenarios of how to
achieve that goal, he said, even by means of the factor of “Southern
Azerbaijan” and splitting of the Iranian country. Even if Iran manages
to create a nuclear weapon before it is attacked from outside, there
may be no such attack considering the inadmissible level of damage and
loss the potential participants in the military operation will suffer.
It is obvious that in that case Saudi Arabia, Turkey and other
neighbors of Iran will also try to create nuclear weapons. As a
result, proliferation of nuclear weapons may get out of control.
On July 30 the U.S. Congress approved a new package of sanctions on
Iran. The sanctions imply big penalties for the companies that have
failed to reduce the purchase of oil and gas from Iran. Are these
sanctions, together with the previous U.S. and European sanctions,
possible to undermine the Iranian economy given its coherence with
China?
The sanctions will seriously damage the Iranian economy and become a
factor of internal destabilization. However, the Iranian economy is
not very dependant on the USA and EU, and these sanctions will hardly
settle the Iranian problem for the USA and Israel. Therefore, those
countries make genuine efforts to change power in Tehran and create
conditions for occupation of Iran and settlement of the problem by
military force.
Which of the foreign actors doesn’t need Assad’s Syria and why? What
role does Iran play in it?
The United States seeks change of power in Syria, as for the USA and
Israel Syria and the Islamic movements like Hezbollah and Hamas are
Iran’s allies. Libya under Muammar Gaddafi was also perceived as
Iran’s ally. Consequently, neutralization or liquidation of Iran’s
allies facilitates military operation against Iran.
Russia and China are taking join efforts to prevent adoption of a
resolution on Syria by the UN Security Council. Do you expect Russia
to defend Assad’s Syria till the end given that after the fall of
Assad’s Syria the Russians will be forced to leave Syria?
It is not because of Moscow’s special attitude to the Syrian leader
Bashar Assad. Syria is a typical model of a situation when a de-facto
coalition of states assumes the right to itself to openly violate the
International Law, and first of all, the principle of non-
interference with the domestic policy of independent states through
financing and arming of the oppositional forces. Such approach
destabilizes the entire system of international relations,
contributing to uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapons. It is
sad but true that the countries and regions where such interference
led to liquidation of the powers undesirable for the USA have not
turned into ‘Oases of Prosperity’. Quite on the contrary, most of the
countries have found themselves even in worse situation than they were
under the dictatorships. Instead of promotion of the institutions and
ideals of the western democracy there is quite favorable environment
for the supporters of radical Islam and “universal Halifat’. As a
result, the zone of chronic instability keeps expanding: to the south
to Mali and the neighbor states, in the south from the permanently
instable Horn of Africa.
What trends are you observing in today’s developments in Syria given
the latest realities?
Everything in Syria is now settled on battlefield. If the Syrian army
manages to defeat the armed opposition, a military operation and
intervention by external forces is quite possible. At least, the
fight against Assad through external support of the opposition will
continue to the last drop of the Syrian blood.
Do the interests of Russia and the USA have any common points in the
region, particularly, in the South Caucasus and Armenia?
Certainly, the interests of Russia and the USA have more common points
in the region, particularly, in South Caucasus and Armenia, than it
may seem. In the current situation Russia and the USA are equally
interested in prevention of new war in Nagorno Karabakh. All the
participants in the Minsk Group have the same stance on the given
problem. Such state of affairs will continue, at least, unless the
situation in the region radically changes, for instance, in case of
war in Iran. Russia and the USA are equally not interested in
strengthening of the radical Islam in the region and in political and
socioeconomic destabilization of the region. Nevertheless, the goals
and interests of the USA and Russia are different, but it is essential
that achievement of those goals do not lead to confrontation. After
the August War of 2008, the Russian-U.S. discrepancies in the South
Caucasus have softened, to some extent. If such trends continue also
after the presidential election in the USA, it will be in favor of our
and all the other countries in the South Caucasus.
The Kurds have taken the northwestern regions of Syria under control
without any clashes. Does this demonstrate Assad’s weakness or his
smartness given that this news has strongly startled Ankara?
For Turkey the situation in Syria like in Iraq is fraught with serious
threats to its national security. The threats come not from the Syrian
army, which is in a heavy situation, but from the progressing
destabilization on the Turkish borders. This leads to aggravation of
Turkey’s old problems like the Kurdish one, and creates many new
problems. For Turkey much will depend on who will finally win in Syria
and whether the united Iraq will collapse soon and whether the
political map of the region will get new countries, including
Kurdistan.
Irrespective of further developments, Turkey and all the other
countries and peoples in the region will face new problems and
difficulties.