Of Mario Mauro

Source: The Subsidiary

“The international community should take advantage of what the Syrian Christian communities express, who without being supporters of Assad, asked to choose between him and ISIS they chose the Syrian president”: so says former defense minister Mario Mauro in this interview with ilsussidiario.net. In Syria there is a conflict between regional powers, there has never been a civil war, he said again, “in which half the world ended up. France in particular is dragging us into a war that has its interests as its sole purpose, within the framework of a neocolonialist policy that has been going on for years”. Trump? “It moves only for internal political interests”.

Macron says he has evidence of Assad's use of chemical weapons: what game is he playing? What is his policy?

For years now, on the international scene, Paris but also London have been playing roles that I would define as neocolonialist, which go far beyond the shared design of the EU. On the contrary, the role they tend to embody constitutes an obstacle to a common European foreign policy, and it also represents a serious problem for a European defense policy because it conceives them only as a reflection of the strategies of these two nations.

Macron come Sarkozy?

Yes, his position seems to be a reflection of that of Sarkozy and therefore ultimately leads us to a very harsh judgment on the scenario of international interventions in recent years 25 years.

What a judgment?

Italy was Iraq's main trading partner at the time of the intervention against Saddam. It was Libya's first partner at the time of the intervention against Gaddafi and coincidentally it was the first commercial partner with Syria when hostilities began.

Partners of dictators?

No, I don't want to say that, as well as that the next Italian government will have to deal with a dimension of national interest that I hope will be well evaluated.

What relations does Macron have with Saudi Arabia??

This is an important aspect. In the Syrian scenario, one thinks as if a civil war were underway, but it's false, it is a war of regional powers that has involved half the world. The clash between Iran and Arabia for hegemony over the Gulf and the Middle East, the problem of Israel's security and Erdogan's neo-Ottoman policy configure a scenario in which France is looking for its own space by putting Europe before the politics of a fait accompli. Macron is taking us to war in Syria for a policy that will be advantageous for France and Arabia. However, it is difficult to understand what Europe's advantage is.

In the midst of all this Trump appears with his outbursts on Twitter, threatening war and then going back on his word. What strategy does he have?

Trump's strategy depends much more on domestic political factors, the need to get rid of the investigations concerning him.

Therefore the announced bombing will not take place?

In a context like the Syrian one, this continuous tendency to try to break the bank by this or that country, and I think of Obama's mistakes who actually agreed to finance unorthodox groups as documented by numerous investigations, The US's difficulty in having a policy to contain Russian expansionism stands out even more. These are the elements in which Trump's latest releases must be inserted. The possibility that Use, France and Saudi Arabia striking in the next few hours without also involving the Russians seems very difficult to me. They should think very carefully before acting.

What do you think of the accusations against Assad on the use of chemical weapons??

In the 2013 an agreement was reached in which the Americans and Russians were protagonists so that Assad would hand over his chemical weapons depots, with a documented result achieved. Even if he managed to preserve part of it, because now that he is winning on the ground thanks to the Russians and Iranians he should end the war in a stupid way by using chemical weapons against defenseless civilians? I don't want to sound like Assad's defense lawyer, I'm just saying that the Syrian civilian population was asked to choose between Assad and ISIS or the jihadist rebels. The victory on the ground is the result of this crazy choice proposed to the population, who rightly preferred Assad. The example to keep in mind is that of Christian communities, who despite not being supporters of Assad, they chose him as a possibility to avert the victory of ISIS.

Which annoyed the Western powers, Right?

The Western powers had bet on the victory of these groups linked to the jihadists. Furthermore, there was and still is the strategic hub of the major gas supply routes which, starting from the Gulf, had to cross Syria and reach the Mediterranean.

What do you think Italy should do??

Our country has to do a very simple political exercise, it must not be crushed by France and Great Britain and reiterate its peace objectives as we did in 2013 thanks to the Letta government, in order to avoid an escalation. E’ It is important that the new parliament takes leadership on an issue that cannot be left to a finite government, that of Gentiloni, and be diligent in supporting the existing government but with the clear indication of not compromising the Italian choice by putting itself in a war position. An unreasonable choice, in light of our relationships with the players in the area. Russia included.

There is a risk that Syria, as a factor of international instability that requires an assumption of responsibility (and therefore a government in a short time) you become the classic alibi for imposing a technical solution?

No, I hope there is no temptation within the parties to let the Gentiloni government do its thing so as not to compromise themselves on what is happening in Syria. E’ the time of responsibility, we were an important building block in the 2013 and if it hadn't been done that way, since December 2013 ISIS would govern in Damascus.

How to get out of the Syrian chaos?

We can make many contributions: our intelligence can provide useful elements to the Americans and French to clarify their ideas on the scenario, which also includes Israel's fears of an attack by pro-Iranian and Hezbollah militias in Syria. A bit’ at a time we need to bring Hezbollah back to Lebanon, send the Iranians home and give the Russians an interposition role so that Iranian interests do not overflow. But neither should it be Western troops that give an advantage to Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

(Paolo Vites)