Category: News

  • The Manifesto of HOVHANNES KATCHAZNOUNI

    The Manifesto of HOVHANNES KATCHAZNOUNI

    Hovhannes Katchaznouni tasnak
    Hovhannes Kajaznuni, 1st Prime Minister of Armenia

    THE ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION (DASHNAGTZOUTIUN) HAS NOTHING TO DO ANYMORE The Manifesto of HOVHANNES KATCHAZNOUNI

    First Promne Minister of the Undependent Armenian Republic Property of the Turkish Forum -World Turkish Alliance

    The abridged pamphlet
    Translated from the Original by Matthew A. Callender
    Edited by John Roy Carlson (Arthur A. Derounian)
    Published by the Armenian Information Service
    Suite 7D, 471 Park Ave. New York 22 1955
    AND
    the omitted sections translated from the Turkish edition, Tasnak Partisi’nin Yapacagi Bir Sey Yok, Kaynak Yayinlari, Nov.2006, Istanbul
    By Lale Akalin 2006

    Translator’s Note to the present edition
    The report you are holding in your hands was delivered to the Dashnatziun Congress convened in Bucharest, in April 1923 by Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first prime-minister of the Armenian Republic founded in 1918.
    The original report was naturally delivered in Armenian and was published in Armenian by the author himself. It was translated to Russian and published in Tiflis (Tbilisi), four years later, in 1927 under Soviet rule, with a rather critical introductory note attached to it. The English translation, an abridged edition, was
    published in 1955 by the “Armenian Information Service” in New York.
    What is remarkable is that this very interesting historical document shedding light over a controversial period of history written by a person who played a crucial role in the life of Armenia has not been included among the documents flying about in the air in relation to the Armenian question. Its copies were removed from the libraries in Europe by the Dashnagziun members. A Russian copy in the Lenin Library in Moscow has very recently been translated into Turkish. This Turkish translation was compared with the 1955 abridged English edition and the parts left out in the English edition were supplemented from the Turkish 2005 edition and translated into English in order to arrive at the present English translation.

    Download full report : https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Katchazuni-The-abridged-pamphlet.pdf

    Katchazuni- The abridged pamphlet

  • Lies, Damn Lies, and Armenian Deaths

    Lies, Damn Lies, and Armenian Deaths

    On April 24, 2009—Armenian Remembrance Day— President Barack Obama issued a statement “remember[ing] the 1.5 million Armenian [deaths] in the final days of the Ottoman Empire.” The President stumbled.

    To paraphrase Mark Twain, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and the number of Armenians who are claimed by Armenians and their echo chambers to have died in an alleged World War I genocide. Almost a century later, the number of deaths they assert oscillates between 1.5-2 million. But the best contemporary estimates by Armenians or their sympathizers were 300,000-750,000 (compared with 2.4 million Ottoman Muslim deaths in Anatolia). Further, not a single one of those deaths necessarily falls within the definition of genocide in the authoritative Genocide Convention of 1948. It requires proof that the accused was responsible for the physical destruction of a group in whole or in substantial part specifically because of their race, nationality, religion, or ethnicity. A political or military motivation for a death falls outside the definition.

    Immediately after the war, when events and memories were fresh, Armenians had no incentive to concoct high casualty figures or genocidal motivations for their deaths. Their objective was statehood. Armenians were encouraged by the self-determination concept in President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, (while conveniently forgetting that they were a minority in Eastern Anatolia where they hoped to found a new nation). Armenian leaders pointed to their military contribution to defeating the Ottomans and population figures that would sustain an Armenian nation.

    Boghus Nubar, then Head of the Armenian Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference (1919), wrote to the French Foreign Minister Stephen Pichon: “The Armenians have been, since the beginning of the war, de facto belligerents, as you yourself have acknowledged, since they have fought alongside the Allies on all fronts, enduring heavy sacrifices and great suffering for the sake of their unshakable attachment to the cause of the Entente….” Nubar had earlier written to the Foreign Minister on October 29, 1918, that Armenians had earned their independence: “We have fought for it. We have poured out our blood for it without stint. Our people played a gallant part in the armies that won the victory.”

    When their quest for statehood shipwrecked on the Treaty of Lausanne and annexation by the Soviet Union in 1921, Armenians revised their soundtrack to endorse a contrived genocide thesis. It seeks a “pound of flesh” from the Republic of Turkey in the form of recognition, reparations, and boundary changes. To make their case more convincing, Armenians hiked the number of deaths. They also altered their story line from having died as belligerents against the Turks to having perished like unarmed helpless lambs.

    Vahan Vardapet, an Armenian cleric, estimated a prewar Ottoman Armenian population of 1.26 million. At the Peace Conference, Armenian leader Nubar stated that 280,000 remained in the Empire and 700,000 had emigrated elsewhere. Accepting those Armenian figures, the number of dead would be 280,000. George Montgomery of the Armenia-American Society estimated a prewar Armenian population of 1.4-1.6 million, and a casualty figure of 500,000 or less. Armenian Van Cardashian, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1919, placed the number of Armenian dead at 750,000, i.e., a prewar population of 1.5 million and a post-war figure of 750,000.

    After statehood was lost, Armenians turned to their genocide playbook which exploited Christian bigotries and contempt for Ottoman Muslims. They remembered earlier successful anti-Ottoman propaganda. United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire during the war, Henry Morganthau, was openly racist and devoted to propaganda. On November 26, 1917, Morgenthau confessed in a letter to President Wilson that he intended to write a book vilifying Turks and Germans to, “win a victory for the war policy of the government.” In his biography, “Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story,” Morgenthau betrays his racist hatred toward Turks (“humanity and civilization never for a moment enters their mind”) and unconditional admiration for Armenians (“They are so superior to the Turks intellectually and morally.”).

    British Prime Minister Gladstone’s histrionic figure of 60,000 Bulgarian Christians slaughtered in 1876 captured the imagination of the west. The true figure later provided by a British Ambassador was 3,500—including Turks who were first slain by the Christians.

    From 280,000-750,000, Armenians initially raised their death count to 800,000 to test the credibility waters. It passed muster with uninformed politicians easily influenced by campaign contributions and voting clout. Armenians then jumped the number to 1.5 million, and then 1.8 million by Armenian historian Kevork Aslan. For the last decades, an Armenian majority seems to have settled on the 1.5 million death plateau—which still exceeds their contemporary estimates by 200 to 500 percent. They are now testing the waters at 2.5-3 million killed as their chances for a congressional genocide resolution recede. It speaks volumes that champions of the inflated death figures have no explanation for why Armenians on the scene would have erred. Think of the absurdity of discarding the current death count of Afghan civilians in the United States-Afghan war in favor of a number deduced in the year 2109!

    Armenians have a genuine tale of woe. It largely overlaps with the tale of tragedy and suffering that can be told by Ottoman Muslims during the war years: 2.4 million deaths in Anatolia, ethnic cleansing, starvation, malnutrition, untreated epidemics, and traumatic privations of war under a decrepit and collapsing Empire.

    Unskewed historical truth is the antechamber of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. That is why the Government of Turkey has proposed an international commission of impartial and independent experts with access to all relevant archives to determine the number and characterization of World War I deaths. Armenians are balking because they are skeptical of their own figures and accusations.

    *Bruce Fein is a resident scholar at the Turkish Coalition of America.

  • The Myth of Innocence Exposed

    The Myth of Innocence Exposed

    ermeni cete adapazari 1915

    The members of Armenian terorist group along with the weapons and bomb found in their house in Adapazari in 1915.

    While The Turks were fighting with the Russians, English and the French, what should have they done with these coldbloodedmurderers who backstabbed The Turks andmurdered women and children while men were away fighting in the battlefields?

    Armenia and the Armenians: Origins of the terms Armenia and Armenian.
    The earliest known history of the Armenians. The Armenian kingdom of
    Cilicia.

    The origins of the Armenian Question: The Armenian Church. The
    activities of missionaries. The difference of religion. Propaganda.

    The Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the Policies of the Great
    Powers: The Ottoman Empire until the imperial reform edict.The policies of
    the great powers. From the reform edict to the Berlin Congress. The
    population question. Armenian sources. Ottoman sources. Foreign Sources.
    The province of Erzurum. The province of Van. The province of Bitlis. The
    province of Diyarbekir. The province of Elaziz. The province of Sivas. The
    1877-8 Russian war and the Berlin Congress. Total Armenian population.

    The Armenian Question: First attempts at reform. The internationalization of
    the subject of reform. Armenian preparation for revolt. Associations and
    committees. The revolutionary Hunchak Party. The revolutionary Armenian
    Federation (Dashnaksutyun). Terrorist activities, rebellions. The Arrest of the
    defenders of the Motherland. The incident of Musa Bey. The shoot-out with
    the Armenakan band members. The Erzurum incident. The demonstration of
    Kumkapi (Kumkapu). Other incidents before the Sassun rebellion.The first
    Sassun rebellion. The Babiali demonstration. Incidents in other cities during
    1895-96. The Zeitun rebellion. The Van rebellion. The raid on the Ottoman
    bank.The second Sassun rebellion. The Yildiz Palace assassination attempt.
    Overall picture of the rebellions. Further attempts at reform. The Adana
    incident and the end of attempts at reform. The Adana incident. Final attempts
    at reform.

    The First World War: The Armenians during the War. The relocation decision
    and its implementation. The partition of the Ottoman Empire. The elimination
    of the eastern front. Armistice and hunting of offenders. The Treaty of Sevres.
    Property of the Turkish Forum-World Turkish Alliance

    The War of Independence: The beginning of the National Struggle and its
    aims. The eastern front. The southern front. The western front. The Treaty of
    Lausanne.

    Download the Armenian file : https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Kamuraneng-ermeni-konusu-armenian-file.pdf

    Kamuraneng-ermeni-konusu-armenian-file

  • HISTORICAL FACTS IN TURKISH-ARMENIAN RELATIONS

    HISTORICAL FACTS IN TURKISH-ARMENIAN RELATIONS

    armenian population ermeni nüfusu

    Historical Facts in Turkish Armenian Relations
    Talaat Pasha Committee Publication -2
    Address:
    Asmalı Mescit Mahallesi, İstiklal Caddesi, Deva Çıkmazı
    No: 3/2 Beyoğlu / İSTANBUL
    Orders and Correspondence:
    talatpasa2015@gmail.com
    Printing and Binding:
    Kayhan Matbaacılık San. Tic. ve Ltd. Şti.
    Davutpaşa Cad. Güven San. Sit. C-Blok
    No: 244, Topkapı – Zeytinburnu / İSTANBUL
    Tel: (0212) 612 31 85 – 576 00 66
    Certificate No: 12156
    This publication is free of charge, it cannot be sold in exchange for money.

    INDEX
    The Lives of Armenians during Seljuk and Ottoman Rule 5
    Armenian Revolts 7
    Massacre of Turks by Armenians Started Long Before Their Forced Migration 8
    The Decision of Forced Migration and Those Exempted from it 9
    Measures Taken To Insure Safety of the Displaced Armenians 10
    Population of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire and the Number of
    Armenians Relocated 12
    The Decree to Stop Migration and Commence the Return of Those Willing 13
    Armenian Cooperation with Enemy Forces 14
    Statements Made by Russian and Armenian Statesmen 16
    Malta Exiles and the Efforts of the British to Find Documents Against the
    Ottoman Government 17
    American Research Committees 18
    The proposed Investigation Committee by the Ottoman Empire 18
    The Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Committee and the Efforts of the
    Turkish-Armenian Platform 18
    Fraudulent Documents and Pictures Manufactured by the Armenians 19
    Number of Turks who were Massacred in 4 Provinces of Eastern Anatolia
    During 1912-1922 23
    Turks Forced to Migrate in Order to Escape from Armenian Massacres 25
    A Comparison Between Deaths of Turks and Armenians and the Armenian
    Desires for More Land 26
    Assassination of Turkish Diplomats by Armenians 27
    Armenian threats and Terror Directed Towards Foreign Parliamentarians and
    Historians 28
    Armenians Raising Their New Generation as Haters of Turks and Turkey 29
    Conclusion 30
    References 31 Property of the Turkish Forum-World Turkish Alliance

    THE LIVES OF ARMENIANS DURING SELJUK AND OTTOMAN RULE

    Contact between the Turks and Armenians began in the year 1026 with the arrival of Çağrı Bey into Anatolia. Until the Seljuks defeated the Byzantines and gained control of Anatolia, Armenians had been living in principalities as vassals of the Byzantine Empire. Once Turks started to rule over these lands, Armenians then became dependent on the Seljuks….

    Download Link : https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/HISTORICAL-FACTS-REGARDING-TURKISH-ARMENIAN-RELATIONS.pdf

    HISTORICAL-FACTS-REGARDING-TURKISH-ARMENIAN-RELATIONS

     

  • JIHAD  –   AS  A  UNIVERSAL CONCEPT

    JIHAD – AS A UNIVERSAL CONCEPT

    Allah cihad cihad jihadAyhan Ozer [ayhan313@verizon.net]

    The Islamic Jihad is an alarming word. In the west, either by ignorance or by design, it is loosely translated as “Holy War”. Yet, the Muslims claim that in Islamic teaching no war is holy; peace and harmony are divine injunctions in Islam. An attempt to present Islam as a warmongering faith is a stereotypical sensationalism handed down from by-gone era when Islam was painted as an arch-enemy of Christianity. If the Muslims are attacked with a faith- based intention then as a last resort Islam sanctions Jihad. Yet, Muslims are encouraged first to search for peaceful solutions to resolve their disputes and conflicts. Understanding, compromise and empathy should be given a chance to resolve hostility and confrontation as they are more constructive, and they lead to harmonious relations.

    Jihad is a multi-level concept, and has a larger connotation than its casual meaning would suggest. It is to strive in the way of God, and to struggle against evil inclinations within ourselves. It may come as a surprise to many but In that sense Jihad is not strictly religion-specific; rather, it is a way of dealing with adverse human conditions, which makes it universal. During a lifetime most individuals, even societies may have had their own moments of Jihad. For instance, the tremendous willpower put forth by a drug addict to free himself from the tentacles of addiction can be construed as a Jihad. Similarly, the ordeal of an alcoholic who seeks liberation from his predicament and his trials on this way can also be characterized as Jihad. All private struggles, such as gambling, over-eating that demand unrelenting will-power and nervous energy to overcome the evil within ourselves can be termed as Jihad.

    There is an anecdote attributed to Prophet Muhammad which illustrates the quiet inner struggle that each of us is required to exert from time to time. According to Traditions, the Prophet had just returned from a battle, victorious. He had proclaimed Jihad as the battle had been waged against the realm of disbelief to defend the faith and the faithful. One of his men said to Him, “Oh Muhammad, you have achieved your Jihad, you must rejoice it!” Prophet responded, “It was a lesser Jihad, now we have greater Jihad that lies ahead of us, and we must overcome it.” The man was puzzled, he asked, “Oh, Muhammad is there a goal more important than to be victorious in a battle?” Prophet replied, “Yes, there is! Now, it is time to conquer the evil force within ourselves, and restrain our ego lest we should slide into vainglory, and dilute our victory.”

    Almost every society has its own flaws. Some are intolerant of the religious or ethnic differences. Others are racist, and some societies oppress women, or deny basic civil liberties to their own people. Racism, for one, is a human defect inherently built in our sub-conscious. It plagues societies indiscriminately. America is a good example in that regard. At one time in its history America suffered from racism and ant –Semitism. As all the evils these two require constant vigilance lest they should raise their heads. Racism especially needs unyielding weariness; it may not be defeated yet it can be controlled through reinforcement and education. What is remarkable about America is its conscious and unrelenting persistence to purge itself of these moral shortcomings. And this can be termed as Jihad! The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s held a mirror to the psyche of the American society, and the country has become continuously vigilant against bigotry and prejudice, and eliminated them from the public sphere. What makes America great is the arduous journey it has undertaken tirelessly in the way of self edification, and its readiness to fight evil forces. In the Islamic lexicon it is called “Supreme Jihad.”

    The above are inspiring examples that describe the concept of Jihad from a larger perspective. The common thread in all those examples is the conscious effort to transcend the self in pursuit of moral rectitude.

    ****

    Ayhan Özer

  • No Peace after Islamic State Foreign Powers Compete for a Slice of Syria

    No Peace after Islamic State Foreign Powers Compete for a Slice of Syria

    IS Syria Suriye Islam Devleti
    Turkey-backed Free Syrian Army fighter holds a weapon in the town of Tadef in Aleppo Governorate, Syria February 12, 2018. Picture taken February 12, 2018. REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi

    Islamic State has largely been defeated, but peace in Syria has not been achieved. On the contrary, without a common enemy, parties involved are now pursuing their own interests, with each wanting a slice of the country.

    What do a counterfeiter from Syria, an Iraqi-Afghan militia fighter under Iranian leadership and a Russian Cossack have in common? More than you might think. They all took part in a strange offensive involving around 300 men on Feb. 7 — an attack force that was bombed by the U.S. as it crossed a pontoon bridge over the Euphrates River in an effort to capture one of largest natural gas fields in eastern Syria for the Assad regime. Located near the city of Deir ez-Zor, the so-called Conoco field had been wrested from Islamic State (IS) last September by Kurdish-led troops — with the help of U.S. Special Forces who have been stationed in the area since then.

    It’s a confusing story, but it says a lot about the increasingly bewildering and dangerous state of affairs in the Syrian war. The advance on the Conoco field, during which around 100 of the attackers are thought to have lost their lives in the American airstrikes, is just one of several clashes between military forces in the country. Indeed, Syria has become a battleground for global and regional powers — including the United States, Russia, Turkey, Iran and Israel — who are using the country as a venue for the pursuit of their own interests. The danger of an unintended clash has become extreme. And the conflict has become even more difficult for outsiders to understand.

    The various international parties to this war have all, almost simultaneously, launched massive attacks in the past few weeks. For much of the last 28 days, the Turkish army has been attacking the Kurdish militia YPG in the northern Syrian city of Afrin. And the Israeli air force launched a wave of airstrikes, which, it says, destroyed half of all Syrian anti-aircraft capability, after one of its warplanes had been shot down during a response to an Iranian drone incursion on Israeli airspace.

    Then there was this mysterious clash near the natural gas field, which some reports have depicted as the deadliest encounter between Russian and American troops since the end of the Cold War. Russian mercenaries were reportedly found among the dead, with some sources claiming that up to 200 Russians lost their lives. Local sources from the main military hospital in Deir ez-Zor indicate the death toll was likely between 10 and 20.

    The intervention of foreign powers in Syria is by no means new. But the current intensity of their conflicts can be largely traced back to a single source: Their joint enemy is gone. Since fall 2014, all powers could agree that Islamic State was the primary target. And even if there was room for doubts regarding the sincerity of Russia and Turkey, the fight against IS served to unite all involved.

    Securing a Slice of Syria

    Now, though, IS has been defeated and its “caliphate” has been reduced to a couple of tiny specks and some territory in the desert. But peace has not been the consequence. In hindsight, IS wasn’t just a monstrosity, but also a pretext. The fight against the Islamist extremists was constantly fueled by the intention that liberated territory could become part of one’s own sphere of influence. It allowed everybody to secure a slice of Syria.

    The anti-IS coalition brought U.S. troops into the country and made the Kurds in northern Syria powerful. They now control a quarter of the country and would like to keep it that way. Turkey, though, would like to prevent the Kurds from retaining that territory. When Kurdish-led troops last September advanced further and further to the south, the U.S. military flew them in helicopters to the area around Deir ez-Zor to prevent anyone else from occupying the oil and gas fields there. Now, the U.S. wants to use those same Kurdish troops that it outfitted for the fight against IS to block Iranian advances in Syria.

    And of course, every foreign power is interested in keeping its own losses as low as possible — which is why numerous military subcontractors and militias have been recruited to take care of the messy ground combat.

    The Americans are using the Kurds to promote their own interests and the Turks, in addition to their own soldiers, are using anti-Assad rebels to fight on their behalf. Iran, meanwhile, has a diverse mixture of Iraqi, Afghan and Pakistani recruits under its command, in addition to its own people. Since 2013, the tens of thousands of troops under Iranian control have been propping up the regime of Bashar Assad. They are commanded, trained and financed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which wants to keep its Syrian ally in power at any price. One of these multinational Shiite militias was also involved in the attack on the Conoco gas field — a collection of fighters straight out of a dystopian catastrophe film.

    Two local tribal militias also took part in the attack, including one controlled by counterfeiter Torki Albo Hamad. Once wanted in Qatar for murder and document forgery in Saudi Arabia, he was known in Syria for being the leader of a gang of highway robbers. In 2013, Damascus offered him money and impunity if he and his men would place themselves at the service of the regime.

    Whatever They Want

    But Russian mercenaries were also involved, including a 51-year-old Cossack, who posed for a photograph ahead of the fight with a medal and raised saber. The unit, known as the Wagner Group, was apparently hired by a group of Syrian businessmen.

    Several different conflicts are currently being fought on Syrian territory and there is no indication that the violence will end any time soon. The international community has consistently demanded a negotiated solution, but the appeals have been little more than empty words — and they have encouraged those involved to take militarily whatever they want.

    It all began with Assad preferring to destroy the entire country rather than giving up power, which is why he wanted a war for all of Syria. But his regime was too weak for such a fight, which made him dependent on Russian and Iranian support – and on the Kurds remaining on the sidelines. The result has been a form of chaos for which standard terms are insufficient. Words like “allies” and “adversaries” have long since lost meaning. The relationship among the Russians, Kurds, Iranians, Kurds, Turks and Americans, along with Assad-regime supporters, has been characterized by hostility in some regions of Syria and cooperation in others.

    The escalation east of Deir ez-Zor served admirably to highlight these shifting alliances, though the situation developed differently than planned. Indeed, several sources have confirmed that prior to the fighting, an arrangement had been reached between the Kurdish-dominated Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the Russians and the Assad regime.

    According to the deal, the SDF was prepared to voluntarily withdraw from the region surrounding the gas fields and allow government troops to replace them. In return, the Russians would close the airspace over Afrin to the Turkish air force and Assad’s forces would finally allow Kurdish reinforcements to pass through government-held territory to Afrin from isolated Kurdish-held regions in the east.

    In other words, the deal involved the Assad regime gaining territory in the east in exchange for helping out the Kurds in the north in their battle against the Turks.

    Something Went Wrong

    Turkish airstrikes on Afrin did, in fact, cease as of Feb. 4, with Moscow having closed the airspace to the Turks. In response, Turkey suspended its offensive, because without prior bombing from above, the military was unwilling to advance on Kurdish lines, defended as they are with concrete and bunkers. In the days that followed, a convoy of around 200 buses, trucks and pick-ups arrived from the eastern Kurdish areas in Afrin, loaded with fighters, ammunition and Iranian-produced weaponry.

    But when it came time to implement the second part of the deal pertaining to the gas fields in eastern Syria, something went wrong.

    A Syrian opposition website took the step of reporting that Assad’s units were preparing to storm the natural gas field and claimed that the SDF had informed the Americans of the coming onslaught. But the U.S. did not stand by silently, instead scrambling its bombers. Did the Kurds actually fail to alert the Americans, so they didn’t have to live up to their end of the bargain? Or did the Pentagon choose to ignore the deal its allies had negotiated?

    Moscow, in any case, was clearly extremely displeased with the Kurds. Just one day after the failed attempt to occupy the natural gas field, the Russians lifted the no-fly zone over Afrin, whereupon Turkey renewed its attack on the Kurds in the city — with ground troops taking five villages soon thereafter.

    • The article you are reading originally appeared in German in issue 8/2018 (February 17th, 2018) of DER SPIEGEL.

    • FAQ: Everything You Need to Know about DER SPIEGEL
    • Six Decades of Quality Journalism: The History of DER SPIEGEL
    • Reprints: How To License SPIEGEL Articles

    The fact that several Russians were killed in the American firestorm completed the chaos. Immediately after the attack, after all, the U.S. repeatedly insisted it had been in contact with the Russians both prior to and during the operation to avoid a collision. Moscow did not deny the assertions. The Russian Defense Ministry later issued a statement saying that the fighters had advanced “without permission” from the military. But did they attack entirely without Moscow’s knowledge? That seems unlikely.

    Competing Notions

    The fact that conflict between rival powers is now breaking out openly isn’t the only new development. The regime’s two allies also appear to be heading for disagreement. Russia and Iran both want Assad to emerge victorious, but the closer that victory comes militarily, thanks to Russian airstrikes and Iran’s militias on the ground, the more clearly it has become that the two sides have competing notions of what to make out of that victory.

    Moscow wants a “Pax Russica” and the corresponding foreign policy dividend: Namely that of finally replacing Washington as the most important actor in the Middle East. But in order to achieve that goal, peace is ultimately necessary, because protracted violence could become unpopular back home.

    Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, by contrast, wants lasting control of Syria and to transform it into the next bridgehead in the Shiite expansion. Indeed, it is already working to convert Sunni Syrians to Shiite Islam and buying up real estate and factories. That might not be in Russia’s best interests, but without Iran, Assad wouldn’t stand a chance. And that would be the end of Moscow’s hope of one day pacifying the country under Assad’s rule.

    Indeed, those in the West insisting on noninterference are right in a sense: There is no military solution to this war. Not one, at least. But several. And in the end, none of them will save the country.