Russia has achieved military and diplomatic success in Syria. Using limited military activity and multi-vector diplomacy, as well as the weaknesses of a chaotic American foreign policy, it is effectively returning stability to a region that has been torn apart by conflict since the Arab Spring in 2011.

The burning Middle East is a mortal threat to the Muslim south of the Russian Federation. The introduction of fundamentalists there threatens Russia with destabilization. Zbigniew Brzezinski followed this strategy, dragging the USSR into the war in Afghanistan; now the Americans want to achieve the same goals by exporting fundamentalists from the Gulf countries. However, if Europe, paralyzed by American pressure, is not even able to defend its interests in Iran or Turkey, limiting itself to empty statements and ineffective actions, then Russia skillfully uses its modest capabilities. Before Putin’s meeting with Erdogan, the Russian president visited Saudi Arabia. This was more an attempt to break the ice than a stage in the development of cooperation.

Saudi interests diverge from Moscow's on issues of Syria and Iran, however, the situation with oil looks completely different. The strength of OPEC is melting before our eyes, but the OPEC Plus format is functioning successfully: an alliance with Russia that has been created over the past four years. Oil prices have stabilized, and speculators have failed to shake up the market even after Yemeni drone strikes on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia. This interaction turned out to be very profitable: the Russians estimate that they managed to obtain an additional $110 billion over three years. Russian-Saudi negotiations are already replacing meetings in Vienna; small producers have lost their importance and are asking the cynical question: “why are OPEC meetings needed at all?”

Both sides have not only oil, but also money. They are the ones who feed the Western financial system by placing revenues from the sale of hydrocarbons on global financial markets. They do not need loans, but an alternative to the current model, in which they are powerless in the face of American demands. Bilateral contacts, mutual direct investments, trade without the use of dollars - such mechanisms can protect against the greed and wrath of an overseas hegemon.

Context

Advance: Russia has become a new powerful force in the Middle East

Foreign Affairs: Russia's return to the Middle East is not an anomaly

Phoenix: the meeting between Putin and the Saudi king took place at the right moment

However, breaking free from this pattern takes time and effort. The agreements being concluded are being implemented only partially (the agreement signed two years ago envisaged investments in the amount of 10 billion dollars, but so far only 2.5 billion have been disbursed). New agreements for another 2 billion also represent only preliminary agreements, which in the end may not be implemented.

In addition, trade looks modest: the volume of trade between Saudi Arabia and Russia is about a billion dollars, while with the United States it is 100 billion. At the same time, Washington is not asleep and demands that Riyadh buy weapons, technology, and food. Neither China, nor especially Russia, will find it easy to enter the Saudi market, including taking a place in the attractive nuclear energy sector, although the Russians are world leaders in investment and are present in the region: they built a power unit in Iran, are finishing construction in Turkey and are starting to work in Egypt. Saudi Arabia dreams of nuclear weapons, so other factors become much more important here. As one of the members of the Saudi royal family (there are a huge number of them) once told me: “We are not trading, we are looking for friends.”

And even more so, there can be no talk of any “strategic cooperation” with Russia: America will not allow it, and it has the appropriate tools (much more effective than those it used in the case of Turkey). In this context, Putin's remarks that “the S-400 would help protect oil refineries” may, at most, give the Saudis an adrenaline rush. They know that in order for Washington to put up with the existence of their state entity with medieval customs, they have to pay. The hundreds of billions of dollars spent on American weapons protect them from even having to answer for the brutal murder of a journalist. Americans are happy with any petrodollars entering their coffers. If only there was a lot of money, and if only no one thought about treason!

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.

The Pentagon could send 120,000 troops to the Middle East if Iran accelerates its nuclear program or attacks American troops. The corresponding initiative is included in the new plan to contain Iran, developed by And. O. US Secretary of Defense Patrick Shanahan, as reported by The New York Times, citing knowledgeable sources in the military department. President of the U.S.A Donald Trump He denied this news, calling it “fake.” However, a week before this, the increase in the American military force in the region was officially announced National Security Adviser John Bolton.

News of the Pentagon’s new plans to “contain” Iran spread across the American media amid attacks on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. On May 12, four tankers caught fire in Fujairah (UAE). Several powerful explosions occurred in the port. No casualties were avoided, but the ships were heavily damaged. On the same day, the UAE Foreign Ministry announced sabotage.

The United States immediately linked the attack on the ships to forces “sympathizing with or working for Iran.” Iran itself has denied any connection to the attacks. Iran's Foreign Ministry called the attack on the tankers an act of vandalism and warned that these events could be used to undermine peace and security in the region.

True, the Saudi Arabian channel Al-Arabiya, which takes an anti-Iranian position, disseminated comments from several Iranian journalists associated with the IRGC. They called the attacks "retribution" and wrote that they were carried out by "sons of the resistance."

The US is building up its forces

It is curious that a week before the attack on the tankers, the American maritime administration warned of possible Iranian actions against the regional oil infrastructure. Washington indicated that commercial ships or oil tankers in the Red Sea, Bab el-Mandeb or Persian Gulf could come under attack.

The warning came against the backdrop of another deterioration in US-Iranian relations. On May 7, Iran announced the suspension of part of its obligations under the “nuclear deal”, from which the United States withdrew a year earlier. Such actions by the Tehran authorities were a response to the White House adding the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to the list of terrorist organizations. In addition, on April 22, Washington decided not to extend sanctions exemptions for several countries buying Iranian oil.

And on May 5, John Bolton said that the White House had sent an aircraft carrier strike group led by the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln to the region. According to him, this was done in response to “disturbing news”. Allegedly, the Iranian military has placed ballistic missiles on its ships in the Persian Gulf. Information about this was distributed by CNN citing “intelligence sources.”

Let us recall that the stumbling block between Iran and the United States was the “nuclear deal”. The American authorities demand a complete stop to Iran's nuclear program, including developments in the field of peaceful nuclear energy. Washington has renewed sanctions against Tehran, including restrictions on the purchase of Iranian oil.

Who benefits?

Despite the fact that the Americans are inclined to increase the military force in the Middle East, in the current situation Trump clearly does not want to attack Iran, says AiF.ru expert of the Russian International Affairs Council RIAC Nikita Smagin.“Trump is not going to start a war. However, he is trying to increase pressure on Iran, including by demonstrating his military capabilities. However, the information about the introduction of 120 thousand troops into the region is most likely a fake. Maintaining such a large group costs a lot of money, and Trump, on the contrary, is betting on reducing the American military presence in the Middle East. But it is likely that the leak was orchestrated by the White House to make Iran nervous.”

Trump does not plan to fight with Iran, because it is too expensive and the results are unpredictable, the expert is sure: “In the United States, the memory of the war in Iraq is fresh, which cost a lot of effort, money and nerves, but only brought new problems. And Iran is much larger than Iraq, the Iranian army is better than the Iraqi one. And it’s much more difficult to fight here, because Iraq is a desert, and Iran has a lot of mountains.”

However, if the Americans really increase their presence in the region, then excesses cannot be ruled out, says Smagin. “For example, there may be provocations that will result in clashes between American and Iranian troops,” the expert believes.

An attack on tankers in the Persian Gulf could be just such a provocation, the RIAC expert believes: “Now it is very difficult to say what happened there or who was behind the attack. There are enough forces in the region that would not be averse to pitting the United States against Iran. This includes Saudi Arabia, which views Iran as the main enemy in the struggle for leadership in the region. This includes Israel, which considers Tehran’s nuclear program a threat to its security. Even within Iran itself there are forces, for example the IRGC, that oppose the nuclear deal with the United States and would not mind escalating tensions.”

Who does not benefit from this attack is the Iranian authorities. They gain nothing from rising tensions in the region. “Now in Tehran they want to wait until the end of Donald Trump’s presidential term, because they believe that any negotiations with him are pointless. The current American leader, in fact, demands complete capitulation from Iran on all issues, without offering anything in return. If Trump is re-elected for a new term, this could lead to quite serious changes in Iranian foreign policy, up to and including the country’s complete withdrawal from the current “nuclear deal,” the expert believes.

In response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's statement earlier on Friday, the statement that “the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) is ready for any threats from Iran, Iran issued a statement in response.

The second deputy commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Hossein Salami, threatens to strike Israel in plain text:

“Do not rely on your air bases because they are within the range of fire. Our fingers are on the red button and the rockets are ready to launch. When the enemy decides to act against us, we will press the button and launch the missiles."

Since The Jerusalem Post is an Israeli publication, we rightly assumed that the Israelis shortened the fiery speech of Mr. Hossein Salami a little, so we turned to the official Iranian source:

“We know very well that you are extremely vulnerable! You have no operational depth for maneuver, no “backyard”. Your entire country is the size of our Operation Bayt al-Moghaddas. You have no way to escape and you live in the mouth of a dragon. You will not be able to resist us and your entire defense will collapse like dominoes when your soldiers and citizens begin to flee. You have no choice but to retreat straight into the sea, after trying to cross it by swimming."

Operation Beit al-Moqaddas (Beit-ul-Moqaddas) is one of the most famous operations of the Iran-Iraq War, the goal of which was the liberation by Iran of the key city of Khorramshahr in southwestern Iran. The operation began on April 24 (1982), when Iranian troops of about 70,000 soldiers launched an offensive along the entire front. They reached the outskirts of Khorramshahr in less than a week, by April 30, having fought through an area significantly larger than the size of Israel in one direction or another:

The modern Israel Defense Forces are, of course, not the Iraqi army of 1982, but today Iran is completely different. Therefore, without the use of tactical nuclear weapons by Israel, which Israel most likely has, Iran’s advance cannot be stopped. However, Iran has chemical weapons, probably something like a “dirty atomic bomb”.

It is possible and most likely that the Israeli Air Force will destroy Iranian aircraft, however, no missile defense system will be able to shoot down Iranian missiles filled with chemical warfare agents, and in response to nuclear strikes either from Israel or from the United States and allies, Iran will use weapons of mass destruction will definitely use it, which General Salami says is not very ambiguous.

As he explained on Twitter, US help to Israel would be “like an ambulance sent to an already dead person and all it can do to help him is take him to the cemetery.”

The use of WMD is a very serious and most extreme measure for any state, so if Iran as a state is threatened with destruction by the joint forces of NATO, it will definitely use WMD. The missiles will not reach the United States, but Israel will definitely be finished, there will be no one there even to escape into the sea. The Israeli military, despite the rhetorical bravado, is well aware of this point. However, Israel's political leadership is stubbornly pushing the country towards collective suicide.

At the same time, in Jordan, for the so-called “joint exercise” Eager Lion, for some reason, about 3,600 US military personnel have already been assembled, including approximately 1,800 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Group,

and USS Harry Truman, accompanied by 7 ships, has already entered the Mediterranean Sea.

Around April 22, it will be in the eastern Mediterranean, as we previously reported. In addition to the missile cruiser, nuclear submarines and destroyers that came from the USS Harry Truman, the US Sixth Fleet is already in the Mediterranean Sea, which was reinforced on the eve of attacks on Syria by several nuclear submarines and allied ships.

However, the most important news comes not from Gibraltar, but from the United States.

On the eve of the US strikes on Syria, all military analysts said almost unanimously that the Diego Garcia Atoll, where the US has a colossal outpost base in the Indian Ocean, would be a key element for an attack on Syria or, if a different team arrives at the Pentangon, on Iran .

From here, as soon as it is noticed that a strike force has begun to assemble there, that is, bombers (especially the Northrop B-2 Spirit) will begin to fly to Diego Garcia, it means that there will soon be a war in the Middle East.

However, neither we nor anyone else from the public who does not belong to the general staff have satellite images of the atoll, that is, we cannot say: what is happening there and are additional bombers being transferred there? However, we can track the transfer of these aircraft as they took off from their bases in the United States:

America is a very large country with a huge army and a very strong air force. Naturally, bombers sometimes fly over the United States. But there are only 20 Northrop B-2 Spirits in the United States, some of which are experimental prototypes, some are undergoing repairs and modifications at factories, some are in full combat readiness with nuclear missiles under their bellies, some are distributed among military bases around the world. Therefore, seeing at least one such aircraft in the sky is a great rarity and joy for aircraft lovers in the USA. And here is not one, not two, but 10 pieces! Half of everything the USA has!

This is not like any teaching. This is the transfer of Northrop B-2 Spirit from one place to another. And, we believe, they flew to some new military base. It is very possible that their final destination will be the Diego Garcia airbase. In this case, we can confidently think that there will soon be a BIG WAR in the Middle East. We don’t know whether it will be a US strike on Iran or a new NATO strike on Syria. However, for now, it seems that the clouds are gathering over Iran.

We are monitoring developments.

What Putin can do, what Trump wants, and why Russia is no longer a deterrent to Israel.

Israel is ready to attack Iran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated this with the wording: “We are determined to stop Iranian aggression against us, even if it means conflict. Better now than later.” A few days earlier, he presented the world with a sensation: 1,600 km from Tel Aviv, the Mossad captured the complete archive of the secret Amad nuclear project. The 100,000 documents, weighing half a ton, show that Tehran continued to develop weapons of mass destruction despite a 2015 agreement between it and six world powers. All this was made public shortly before the May date on which US President Donald Trump planned to finally formulate Washington’s position regarding the “nuclear deal” with Iran: whether it remains in it or leaves. Analysts started talking about the grim prospects for war in the Middle East. It may turn out to be the most terrible clash in the 21st century, in which America and Russia will be involved.

History of the "nuclear deal"

Iran has always been a tasty morsel for a variety of players on the international chessboard. Its advantageous geopolitical position and oil fields discovered at the beginning of the 20th century were appreciated by the failed world dictator Adolf Hitler. A huge map of this state hung in the Reich Chancellery and excited the Fuhrer’s fantasies. “In the east, we must extend our dominance... to Iran,” he declared among his circle of associates.

In the 1960s, the attempt at a “white revolution” (read: Westernization), undertaken by the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, became a step towards turning the country into a partner of the West in a number of areas and led, among other things, to the development of “peaceful atom” technologies. Iran became a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in 1957, a year after the organization was created.

After the Islamic Revolution and the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the new Iranian government froze its nuclear program, but returned to it a few years later. New facilities were built. Iranian specialists visited foreign research centers. The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran acquired a ten percent stake in a gaseous diffusion uranium enrichment plant being built in Tricasten, France, for $1 billion.

At the beginning of this century, Iran launched the secret Amad research project, the goal of which was to develop and test a nuclear warhead for a ballistic missile. It was he who became the stumbling block in Iran’s relations with the civilized world. And although, according to the IAEA, the project was suddenly abandoned at the end of 2003, world leaders were left in no doubt about the real state of affairs. In 2005, the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, France (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council) and Germany began negotiations with Iran, which ten years later led to the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which, in fact, was called "nuclear deal". In accordance with it, Tehran committed itself to allowing IAEA inspectors into its nuclear facilities. Drastically reduce the number of centrifuges that enrich uranium, as well as significantly reduce existing reserves of enriched uranium. And do not enrich your uranium to the level necessary to create nuclear weapons. In exchange for this, Western countries undertook a step-by-step lifting of sanctions that were causing serious damage to the country’s economy. According to some experts, one of the radical measures—the disconnection of Iran from the SWIFT interbank system in 2012—precisely forced it to agree to a “nuclear deal.” A few months before this event (as it seemed fateful at the time), President of the Islamic Republic Hassan Rouhani admitted that the remaining sanctions were like the stone blocks that lined the wall around Iran, and it was extremely difficult for the country to survive in such conditions.

Until recently, only the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia expressed views that the JCPOA was ineffective. And as soon as the American president announced in October of last year that he would no longer assure Congress that the nuclear deal with Iran was in American interests, calling for additional conditions for a further suspension of sanctions to be put forward to Iran, as did the rest of the 5+1 group here they objected to him. The position of Britain, France and Germany was that an agreement with Iran was in line with their shared national security interests. Russia expressed regret, considering that Washington’s demarche would not lead to the termination of the treaty. China, even before Trump’s loud verbal escapades, emphasized its commitment to the JCPOA. In addition, the European Union reported that the current agreement cannot be denounced by the decision of one country.

Moscow's overall foreign policy spectrum shows that Iran remains Russia's partner in the Middle East

It is unlikely that these views will remain fully unshakable if it turns out that Iran has indeed continued to work on developing nuclear weapons under the noses of IAEA inspectors. Even Moscow, apparently, will have to change its rhetoric regarding Tehran, which today remains rather friendly. In the sense, however, in which such an attitude is dictated by the saying: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

What can Putin do?

After the inauguration, at which Putin could not make out the text that he himself wrote (by his own admission, “like a chicken with its paw”), the word “grandfather” began to be used for him on the Internet, hinting at senile dementia. However, he nevertheless remains a figure with whom participants in the Middle East conflict have to reckon. It is no coincidence that Benjamin Netanyahu expressed his intention to meet with the Russian president on May 9. Whether he was the only foreign guest at Putin’s parade, repeating last year’s “achievement” of the President of Moldova, anyone who has watched this annual pompous show in Moscow at least out of the corner of their eye can answer.

For Putin, the visual nature of the action has always been an important component. He is with Netanyahu on the podium, past which the parade participants are passing - this is at least some answer to how various kinds of allies leave Russia alone with their problems. G7, it seems, will never become G8. Trolling is circulating on the Internet, attributed to the Prime Minister of Canada: they say that at the June G7 summit, Putin could perfectly serve tea. And although this is most likely a fake (or something said in the narrowest possible circle, as a joke that should not have leaked out the door), it reflects the real attitude of the leaders of industrialized countries towards the head of the Russian Federation: he is not welcome in this company . The United States in Syria gave the Russians a number of slaps in the face, to which the Kremlin, just like the imposed sanctions, did not find any worthy answers. The wind from the East also does not inflate Russian sails too much. China has played and continues to play its own game. Even the leader of North Korea chose a different, non-pro-Russian course for his country. Against this background, the meeting with Netanyahu is simply a godsend: look, Putin is not alone.

It is significant that last week two interviews appeared in the Russian media with Israeli defense ministers - the former, Moshe Ya'alon, and the current, Avigdor Lieberman. Both of them, among other things, noted the level of trust and reliable communications that make it possible to avoid disagreements in the region between Russia and Israel. However, the current relations between the two countries cannot be called too trusting. The fact that Netanyahu literally “boiled” the world—Iran is enriching uranium and testing Shihab-3 missiles with nuclear warheads—raised doubts in Sergei Lavrov, head of the Russian Foreign Ministry. He suggested that the documents may date back to a period when Iranian facilities were not yet under the control of the IAEA, and advised that the papers be transferred to this organization.

This can only be perceived as diplomatic evasiveness. But it still does not fall out of the foreign policy spectrum outlined by Moscow: Iran is Russia’s partner country in the Middle East. And it plays an important role in the fight against terrorism in Syria. Of course, this is a long way from a full-blooded alliance. In the end, Tehran has not stopped treating Russia as a “little Satan”, with which conflicts arise every now and then. Iran, for example, supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, provided active assistance to Muslims in Yugoslavia in the fight against the Serbs, and contributed to the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in Libya. Nevertheless, today he is a situational ally for Russia. And given his role in the confrontation between the Kremlin and the White House, one can expect that Putin will try to demonstrate support for Netanyahu, but only within that symbolic limit, which the Italians designate as né troppo né troppo poco - not too much, not too little. Well, in fact, Belokamennaya shouldn’t rewrite her entire Middle Eastern agenda to please Tel Aviv.

Understanding who in this region engulfed in fire is friends with whom and against whom is no easier than unraveling the snakes on the famous sculpture “Laocoon” by the Rhodian sculptors. Cooperation between Russia, Turkey and Iran in the fight against the Islamic State has only worsened the situation. The presence of the Iranian military in Syria frankly irritates Tel Aviv. They consider it their direct responsibility to remove from their borders those who among their goals proclaim the destruction of the state of Israel. The desire is quite understandable, but not too shared by Moscow. The latter even threatened to supply S-300 anti-aircraft missile systems to Syria. And while this game of nerves is going on, Israeli Defense Minister Lieberman expresses himself in the spirit of Panikovsky: “Shura, you know how much I respect Ostap Ibrahimovich, but...” That is, Israel values ​​relations with Russia, but will hit the S-300 in the event of shelling. It is possible, however, that what will stop Russia is not this harsh statement, but the fact that the Arabist Elijah Magnier wrote about the other day. Israel has already invented an effective “antidote” not only for this air defense system, but even for a more modern type of weapon - the S-400. And if he butchers the S-300 like God cuts up a turtle, it will be both a shame for the Russian military-industrial complex and a demonstration of its complete failure. Not the most successful solution for a power that is frantically clinging to the opportunity to remain in the eyes of the world as a “solver of international problems.”

It is clear that Tel Aviv would not like to have Moscow as an opponent. However, as Ben Caspit, an Israeli journalist who has always vehemently criticized Netanyahu, notes, the latter is not afraid of war with Russia. From Bibi's point of view (as Netanyahu is sometimes familiarly called), Putin can do whatever he wants, but Russia is no longer a deterrent to Israel. The author of the article emphasizes that such changes may be associated with unprecedented support from the head of the White House. The logic of this support is as follows: Washington wants to “deal with” Tehran, just as it recently wanted (and, it seems, has not yet changed its mind) to “deal with” Pyongyang.

What does Trump want?

The answer “break up the nuclear deal” is correct, but too superficial. Trump has really been craving this for the past few months. And to such an extent that, as The Guardian writes, he hired representatives of an Israeli private company whose task is to find discreditable materials on officials involved in preparation of the nuclear agreement with Iran under President Obama. First of all, on Ben Rhodes, then US National Security Advisor, and Colin Kahl, then assistant vice president of the country. The publication notes that the work was done thoroughly, the Israelis recorded all meetings between Rhodes and Kahl with pro-Iranian lobbyists. It has not yet been reported whether these officials have been able to identify the personal interest of these officials in concluding a nuclear deal. If they manage to do this, Trump will have additional trump cards in his hands in favor of leaving the agreement. Although all these efforts still look like a backup option. Half a ton The “arguments” obtained by the Mossad are quite enough for the American president to say no and break the agreement, which is backed by several countries.

Trump did this even ahead of the schedule that was announced by representatives of his administration. Instead of May 12, he “withdrew” from the deal on the 8th, raising an unprecedented wave of excitement. However, a little later he said: “I hope that we can make a deal with them - a new deal, a good deal, a fair deal - that will be better for them.” How this “new deal” might be better for Iran is still unclear. What Trump wants to achieve for the United States, he said: “We should be able to get into a facility and check that facility. We should be able to get into their military bases to see whether they are deceiving there or not.” It is difficult to say whether the Iranians will agree to a “new deal” and what the US partners in the JCPOA will do in this situation. So far, one thing is clear: the old agreement has been broken, and this in itself is not the ultimate goal of the current occupant of the White House.

Taking into account the fact that in Iran itself there are currently ongoing protests, where voices are heard in support of the overthrown Shah, it becomes clear: anything can happen in this brew. Especially if events begin to develop in the spirit of the Nietzschean formula: push the falling one. For now, the ayatollahs still have some margin of safety, but what they definitely don’t have is calm about what’s happening. When the country's President Hassan Rouhani declares that "next week our lives will not change in any way. Whatever decision Trump makes, we have plans, we will resist," this is less reminiscent of an adequate assessment of the situation, and more reminiscent of the rhetoric of the Iraqi rulers recently before the era of Saddam Hussein faded into the past.

Another thing is that the overthrow of the ayatollahs' regime and Washington's withdrawal from the agreement, as in the case of the overthrow of Saddam, are not in themselves a solution to all problems. The Washington Post, reporting on May 7, quoted Philip Gordon, a former Obama administration official, as saying: “I hope that one day the Iranian people will find a way to get rid of the Islamic Republic, but I am skeptical about America’s ability to accelerate such development without unforeseen consequences and fear "that some of what the hawks are proposing can only do harm."

On May 8, US President Donald Trump announced Washington's withdrawal from the nuclear deal with Iran.

By the way, in Tel Aviv, which so deftly threw the political ball at Washington’s bat, they seem to be less enthusiastic about breaking the deal, seeing it as a forced decision. “We want to change, not cancel, the nuclear agreement,” explains Ayelet Shaked, Israel’s Minister of Justice. “In its current form, it is unfavorable for the West and for Israel. The best option would be to supplement it. Apart from the nuclear issue, the agreement does not take into account Iran's expanding influence throughout the Middle East and its cooperation with terrorist organizations. However, if we cannot change the agreement, then we will side with Donald Trump, who wants to end the agreement."

Even before Netanyahu announced that Amad’s secret archive had become unclassified and the situation around Tehran was heating up to the limit, respected American journalist Thomas Friedman sounded the alarm: “Israel and Iran are going to duel in Syria because of Iran’s attempts to turn it into a forward air base against Israel". He called Iran “the largest occupying force in the Arab world,” which, in addition to supporting the Syrian conflict, continues to supply Hezbollah in Lebanon with everything it needs, supports rebels in Yemen, etc. The two countries, he warned, “are currently on the verge of "to take the situation to the next level, and if this escalation occurs, the US and Russia may not be able to stay away."

Today the situation has only worsened. On the night of May 10, Israeli aircraft attacked Iranian military facilities located in Syria - reconnaissance, logistics, observation posts, bases, and warehouses. The stated reason is a response to a rocket attack on the Golan Heights, which the Israelis believe is behind the Iranian Quds Force. The number of points hit is 35. According to the official representative of the Israeli command, Lieutenant Colonel Yonatan Conricus, the night air strikes were one of the largest Israeli air operations in recent years and “definitely the largest against Iranian targets.” The enemy did not suffer any losses in manpower, but such a task was not set. However, all this may be a preface to the outbreak of war. After which Friedman’s warning is perceived almost as something prophetic. In the spirit of the well-known expression: “It’s easy for prophets of doom - it’s hard for them to make mistakes.” A little more and we seem to know whether it is always true.

O. BYCHKOVA: Good evening, this is the “Cover-2” program, as always, on air we discuss topics that seem most important for foreign weeklies. Today we will talk about whether war is possible in the Middle East, because this time the news comes from the border of Turkey and Syria - strange exchanges of blows are taking place there. I’ll immediately introduce the guests - Nordun Hadzhioglu, Mazen Abbas and Evgeniy Satanovsky.

Today another message came - Turkish artillery again returned fire, from where the city of Akcekalle was fired upon, where a shell fired from Syrian territory exploded on the Syrian-Turkish border. It hit the garden of one of the local agricultural operations, there were no casualties or injuries, but over the past two days this is already the 4th time a shell has hit Turkish territory from Syrian territory. Let's ask Nordun to explain what this place is.

N. HAJIOGLU: If we are talking about the village of Akchekale, it is a settlement, in direct proximity, even bordering the checkpoint of the transition point to Syria, a small settlement with no more than 10 thousand inhabitants. Why do these shells hit there? - deep into the territory of Syria, approximately 10 kilometers from the border, according to journalistic information, there are battles between the Syrian authorities and the opposition, and according to the Syrian government, they arrive by accident. The first shell was explained as an accident, an assurance was given that there would be no more accidents, but after several hours, on the same day, in the evening, the second shell also hit the town of Shirna, nearby, and the Turkish artillery also responded with a salvo to this incident . By the way, there are no longer 4, but five cases.

The statement was made a long time ago, after the downing, crashing - I don’t know what to call it - of an F-4 reconnaissance aircraft, this was at the beginning of summer, 3-4 months have passed, after this incident Turkey stated that in the future it would adequately respond with both apologies and this issue will no longer be considered in notes.

O. BYCHKOVA: Still by chance, or not by chance? How is this commented in Turkey?

N. HACIOGLU: If it had been so accidental, then the Turkish government would probably not have reacted the way it reacts today - it would not have fired back. First, let's say the following - whose house is a mess? Mess in Syria. If someone drank 10 bottles of vodka on the top floor and is rowdy, what is the first thing you do? - call the police, the police will come and ask once - what are you doing? If a pensioner lives under them, he will sit quietly, and if there is an athlete under them, he will rise up and punch the rowdy in the face. This is roughly how the situation can be explained.

O. BYCHKOVA: Evgeny, what bothers you?

E. SATANOVSKY: Since I am not a Syrian or a Turk, nothing bothers me here at all, and whether there will be a war between these two states, or will it cost border incidents - this is absolutely not a Russian problem - we are not there, and, thank God. The fact that this is, of course, an accident is understandable: serious operations do not start like this, neither the Turkish army nor the Syrian. And on the other hand, there are professionals in the armies, not only Turkey, but also Syria is pumped up. But continuing my colleague’s beautiful metaphor, I would like to note that when a civil war starts in your country, they pay for it, transfer militants, supply weapons and play one of the most active roles in inciting this very civil war, they create corridors for militants who are concentrated and are taught on their own territory.

O. BYCHKOVA: Territories of Turkey.

E. SATANOVSKY: Absolutely. At the same time, telling everyone fairy tales that Turkish foreign policy means zero problems with its neighbors - it has not been zero for a long time, there are already few neighbors with whom Turkey does not have many big or small problems. It should not be assumed that these activities, including maintaining a state of civil war in border areas, will not transfer to the territory of the country that supports militants, including radical Islamists.

It is clear that the Emirate of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which play a major role here, perhaps more important than Turkey, are far away. And Türkiye is a neighboring state. And it is therefore clear that there are no battles on the Qatari or Saudi border, and Turkey, unfortunately, pays for Erdogan’s policies - innocent people pay.

O. BYCHKOVA: In your opinion, what should the policy consist of?

E. SATANOVSKY: This is absolutely none of my business - I am not a Turkish voter for the Justice and Development Party, I do not vote for the Justice and Development Party, and I do not give them advice.

O. BYCHKOVA: I'm not asking you to give advice. I'm asking how you interpret this policy as an observer.

E. SATANOVSKY: Turkey has gotten itself up to its neck in the war in Syria as one of its main organizers and initiators - from the point of view of an outside observer, one is surprised that what is happening is happening.

O. BYCHKOVA: Why does she need this?

E. SATANOVSKY: And this is what you need to ask the leadership in Ankara. Great power ambitions, a new Ottoman port, the idea that Erdogan is about to become the president of a new presidential republic, and he has little time - a serious cancer. Therefore, we observed a sharp attitude between Turkey and Israel - after the flotilla - Turkey did a lot of things in Libya. Therefore, the visa-free regime with Libya and Syria, by the way, the conversation about the creation of some kind of “Middle Eastern brotherhood” under the leadership of Turkey, ended with the overthrow and Lynching of Gaddafi, after which trust in Turkey and its policies in Syria was less than zero. Moreover, Syria receives everything from Turkey directly, as one of the three main anti-Syrian players.

At the same time, from my point of view, of course, the incident is accidental, because neither in Turkey nor in Syria no one really wants a big war between them. And maybe they will try to avoid it.

N. HACIOGLU: I categorically disagree with this. Because other than unfounded allegations, I cannot accept these statements of yours.

E. SATANOVSKY: Read the sources, including places of concentration of militants.

N. HACIOGLU: I am guided by what I know - what I saw and what I understand. If someone makes such unfounded claims without catching someone by the ear, I don’t accept that.

E. SATANOVSKY: Türkiye does not hide this.

N. HACIOGLU: I have to see this.

E. SATANOVSKY: Then we need to sit on the border with Syria.

N. HACIOGLU: But we are talking about something else. You say that Türkiye started this war.

E. SATANOVSKY: No, Qatar and Saudi Arabia unleashed it.

N. HACIOGLU: It started 19 months ago, when the Syrian authorities, namely their intelligence services, raised weapons at an ordinary wedding, three people were killed who spoke out against the regime at this wedding - that’s the beginning. Why didn't this happen in Sweden when Breivik killed 70 people.

E. SATANOVSKY: How many did the Turks kill?

O. BYCHKOVA: No, you shouldn’t go in the other direction.

M. ABBAS: Of course, many Russian analysts are very fond of geopolitics and forget that it is not sheep who live in Syria, but people. 19 months ago, peaceful protesters were killed there. Yes, Turkey is to blame - it accepted 100 thousand refugees, and no one helped the Turks provide for these people. And now we are starting to talk about geopolitical conspiracy and a world war that will happen because some poor people in Syria tried to get freedom, and Russia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia interfered in this - they all intervened.

We don’t see this picture in Russia, for some reason Russian analysts don’t see this picture, but always try to blame the revolution for being terrorists. What is happening are terrorist attacks. They don’t see that the Assad regime is trying to provoke - from the very beginning, in May last year, it sent peaceful, unarmed people towards Israel - 38 of them were killed, and the reaction is understandable: people tried to cross the border. Do you know about this case?

E. SATANOVSKY: But of course.

M. ABBAS: Is this not a provocation on the part of the Syrians? Provocation. When the former minister, in agreement with the head of the Syrian intelligence services, prepared an explosion among Christians and Muslims in order to provoke them into a religious war in Lebanon. This man has been arrested, there is even a court that is deciding on his fate. So it’s clear that the regime is trying to organize provocations in order to save itself from the people.

E. SATANOVSKY: The main provocation of the week is the statement of the Al-Arabiya channel, which you represent...

M. ABBAS: I do not represent the channel, I work as a correspondent.

E. SATANOVSKY: Even more so. The fact that the Turkish pilots who died after the reconnaissance plane was shot down were shot by Russian prisoners of war.

M. ABBAS: Nothing of the kind - these documents were presented by the opposition. And what you say was not in this document.

E. SATANOVSKY: Excellent. You can lie indefinitely. Your channel, like Al Jazeera, is fueling a civil war.

M. ABBAS: I don’t know where you get this information from and start telling that it’s supposedly true.

E. SATANOVSKY: We know about the anti-Russian activities of the Al-Arabiya channel and that you play one of the main, provocative roles - absolutely for sure. And about the fraud that both Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya are playing in the civil war.

O. BYCHKOVA: Let's not blame either the channels or the journalists. Mazen Abbas does not personally engage in falsification.

E. SATANOVSKY: Mazen Abbas works on this channel in Russia. This channel created a sensation in Russia last week - the airwaves were heated with questions from journalists and diplomats on the topic of false information, which the Russian Foreign Ministry clearly called it exactly that.

O. BYCHKOVA: It doesn’t seem to me that Mazen Abbas should now be responsible for the truthfulness or falsity of this information.

E. SATANOVSKY: Of course, he will not answer for them, that’s for sure. But the question of who is the provocateur here, frankly speaking, is quite meaningless, because the entire “Arab Spring” is a big game to redivide the Middle East and create a caliphate before the big war of the Arabian monarchies with Iran, in which, of course, Syria and Iran’s ally and At the same time, the Alawites rule there, they are generally heretics from the Salafi point of view, they must be overthrown. It is no coincidence that Zawahiri, the head of al-Qaeda, declared jihad.

N. HACIOGLU: He announced it 15 years ago.

E. SATANOVSKY: He announced it after that. So when you start telling moving stories about peaceful people...

N. HACIOGLU: And you don’t like it.

E. SATANOVSKY: I like objectivity and truth, not lies.

N. HACIOGLU: If it’s not about peaceful people, then I don’t know what is.

E. SATANOVSKY: In Egypt they represent a country that successfully betrayed its president in the framework of what you call a “revolution”, and in Russia is often called “turmoil”.

O. BYCHKOVA: In Russia they also call it differently.

M. ABBAS: Russia is against democracy in any Arab country.

E. SATANOVSKY: For God's sake, kill each other within the framework of democracy in an Arab country. O. BYCHKOVA: Evgeniy, I ask you again - don’t say “cut each other.”

E. SATANOVSKY: Can I say what I want? You don’t have to call me, I can get up and leave, but no one will be able to shut me up - neither the Arabs nor the Turks.

O. BYCHKOVA: Let's still adhere to some rules. We are discussing the situation here. As far as I understand, each of you is an observer in this situation, knowledgeable on one side or another of this story. Therefore, saying “you cut each other” is not very correct.

E. SATANOVSKY: And it seems to me that if they are trying to show off me, as they call it in Russia, about why we are against democracy, I repeat once again - democracy in the Arab world is the right of the majority to cut and kill minorities, making it the most inhumane way. Lynch the one who just yesterday ruled the country and made this country a country.

M. ABBAS: Is it not racist to evaluate Arabs in this way?

E. SATANOVSKY: No. Those people who are fleeing from this democracy are also Arabs, many are fleeing.

M. ABBAS: Tell me, who is running? Do you have more information than me?

E. SATANOVSKY: You have information. Another thing is that you work on a channel where it is not customary to give honest and objective information.

M. ABBAS: The channel is not a party responsibility.

E. SATANOVSKY: Who knows? Salaries are paid. Didn’t a quarter of a million Copts flee the country just at the end of the year?

M. ABBAS: You are talking about the last 5 years.

E. SATANOVSKY: I'm talking about the last autumn.

M. ABBAS: Your information is completely incorrect.

E. SATANOVSKY: Excellent. So we talked. What to expect from an Al-Arabiya journalist?

M. ABBAS: What to expect from Mr. Satanovsky, the Middle East Institute, the main defender of Israel?

O. BYCHKOVA: I beg your pardon. Let's get back to the topic, let's not bother figuring out why it's not clear. After the broadcast. Let's return to the topic of Turkey and Syria. Still, what is happening now in this place, Akchekalet, is not a place where refugee camps are located.

N. HACIOGLU: This is an old settlement in Turkey.

O. BYCHKOVA: It was logical to assume that there are refugee camps from Syria on the territory of Turkey, there are many of them there, and the people there are different - these are refugees, militants, military, some kind of special services - a complex story.

N. HACIOGLU: No, we are talking about a Turkish village, where there are currently no refugees from Syria. This is a purely old settlement, it is not associated with refugees.

O. BYCHKOVA: Can you guess who might need this? The simplest explanation is that the opposition needs it.

N. HACIOGLU: I would like to approach this issue a little differently. I would say that the following is evident: in the neighboring country, one way or another, there is a conflict - some call it the government fighting the opposition, others call it an internal civil war. We must proceed from the fact that clashes are taking place in Syria. I’m not saying – let Turkey take over and regulate the situation. It’s very simple - we sat with the same group 6 months ago and discussed what would happen, what had changed since that day? Absolutely nothing. What happened? two meetings of the UN Security Council, an international conference in Geneva - again nothing has changed. Well, if you think that Turkey is a country that cannot be trusted to regulate security on the Syrian border, then there is a UN clause that provides for sending “blue helmets” to this zone. But even this cannot be accepted by the Security Council, which talk to each other in much the same way as Mr. Satanovsky talks to us. What to do in this situation? This means that again everything comes down to the UN Security Council, which seems to have declared itself responsible for this situation, but on the other hand, does not fulfill this responsibility. What to do, who will regulate this situation so that Syrian shells do not fall on Turkish territory.

E. SATANOVSKY: The question is who will regulate the situation so that militants do not concentrate on Turkish territory and are not trained by American and French intelligence services, so that Islamists are not transferred there from Libya.

N. HACIOGLU: Again. Suppose a Syrian general escaped and ran to Turkey, what will you do? Will you rip off your shoulder straps?

E. SATANOVSKY: And you are wrong - a lot has changed. Firstly, Baghdad refused to extend the agreement concluded under Hussein on the possibility of the Turkish army legally, with the permission of the Iraqi side, to act against Kurdish militants in the border areas of Iraq.

N. HACIOGLU: If we talk about Iraq now...

E. SATANOVSKY: This happened a week ago. Secondly, Iraq is on the verge of a complete breakdown in cooperation with Turkey on Kurdish terrorists. And this is the result of exactly the activity of the Turkish side in the Syrian civil conflict. So a lot happened. And this war, of course, will not be good for anyone - there is no doubt that if the Turkish army strikes Syria seriously, it will probably defeat Syria, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory, including for Turkey.

O. BYCHKOVA: Let's take a break for news and return to the studio.

O. BYCHKOVA: We continue the program. We are talking about whether there will be a war in the Middle East. Now we have heard the latest news from the border of Syria and Turkey - today there was again a retaliatory strike by Turkish artillery to a shell that arrived by chance or not by chance from the Syrian side. It has indeed been proven that the shell came from Assad’s troops. Anne of the opposition, or do they not have such weapons?

N. HACIOGLU: I can repeat the statement of the Turkish Foreign Minister made yesterday: “Turkish military experts examined the projectile, and it was established that it is a D-30 type weapon, which is in service with the Syrian army.” This is where the Turkish statement ends. Of course, one can assume that this is a weapon of the Syrian Ministry of Defense or one can assume that the opposition captured this weapon - one can assume so. But the fact is a fact - the shell was fired from a gun belonging to the Syrian army.

O. BYCHKOVA: Evgeny Satanovsky rightly said that nothing good will happen if a more serious conflict breaks out.

N. HACIOGLU: I agree. Who would want war?

O. BYCHKOVA: But if we hypothetically assume that this does happen, what could happen? This, for example, moves the situation with the Syrian civil war from a dead point - they have been in a state of unstable equilibrium for several months now, and this can continue for quite a long time.

M. ABBAS: Let's see - if there is a war, who will be a supporter and who will be an opponent of this war. Who really needs this war, and who is against it?

O. BYCHKOVA: Who has self-interest.

M. ABBAS: Yes. And this is determined precisely by the geopolitical picture. I believe that, firstly, of course, Turkey has no interest in fighting against Syria, since the Turks have several problems - not only refugees and military personnel who escaped from the army. There are also Kurds, whom the Syrian regime very professionally uses against Turkey, and this began during the time of Assad’s father, Bashar. Therefore, neither Turkey nor Jordan are interested; I think that Israel does not support the disorder in the region. The participation of Americans in the Syrian problem is only statements, good words, support for human freedom, and that’s all. The only one who needs this war is the regime, because it must unite its forces against some enemy in order to stop the revolutionary process that is taking place in Syria.

E. SATANOVSKY: I would say that this is a strong move, because to expect that the Assad regime, which is on the brink of survival, needs a war, knowing what the Syrian armed forces are...

O. BYCHKOVA: That is, a second front is actually opening for Assad?

E. SATANOVSKY: No, this is not a second front. The war with Turkey is not a civil war. And I’ll try to say some more fair words - what difference does it make who fired on Turkish territory from the point of view of the Turkish military command and from the point of view of the country’s political leadership? More than one shell hit Turkish territory. Generally speaking, these people get paid to prevent such things from happening - at least it doesn’t matter who fired the shell. The area where this missile came from should be subjected to a response from the same Turkish artillery, which happened - this is definitely the responsibility of the Turkish Armed Forces, that's why they are kept there. Turkey not so long ago, at the beginning of the 20th century, suffered a severe blow when Western powers tried to dismember it, and most of its modern neighbors, at least the countries of the Arab world, are former Turkish veloets who separated from the Turkish empire and were not included in Turkish Republic Ataturk. Therefore, people fulfill their responsibilities.

The trouble is that no theory works here. You may not want war - no one wanted the First World War. But the situation may develop in such a way that you cannot avoid war, even if it ends fatally for all the warring parties.

In this regard, after all, since both the Turkish and Syrian leadership understand the situation perfectly and indeed, on neither side - despite all the statements and the cold war against Syria, in which Turkey is involved - from my point of view, - a hot war - something incredible is about to happen and I would like to hope that this does not happen.

M. ABBAS: Do you think that Turkey should itself solve the problems that are being imposed on it by Syria, or is this an international problem, of the international community?

E. SATANOVSKY: I have a very low opinion of the international community. I believe the UN is an empty bunch of bureaucrats who, for generations, have been eating away generous salaries and travel allowances, but in no case, including peacekeeping - I closely monitor the peacekeepers, I observe almost all missions - nothing useful has been done.

The point is not that Turkey cannot and should not count on the support of the international community in the event of aggression against its territory. And the fact is that even the NATO bloc, which has a corresponding article, has not yet decided to use this article and, accordingly, Turkey is currently alone. To assume that tomorrow and the day after tomorrow she will be alone - we’re not even talking about the UN, we’re talking about NATO. Because the Libyan campaign has depleted NATO reserves, both of precision-guided munitions and financially, because Obama is running a presidential campaign, he is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and he is not Bush. Türkiye was left alone with its problems – that’s a fact.

N. HACIOGLU: Then why do you object to Turkey solving its problems?

E. SATANOVSKY: I just said that not only do I not object, but I perfectly understand the obligation.

M. ABBAS: Who will force Assad to peace?

E. SATANOVSKY: If Turkey decides to do this, hardly anyone will condemn it, but this will be the entire responsibility of the Turkish leadership. In the end, Turkey is too serious a player in international politics for any condemnation or non-condemnation of Turkey to play any role for the Turkish leadership. When the Qatari emir says something about the fact that it is time for Arab forces to overthrow the Syrian regime, we immediately call Qatar a “barking mouse.” When and if Turkey makes such a decision - so forgive me, one of the great powers of the 19th century. And quite possibly, one of the great powers of the future, the 21st-22nd century, for God’s sake.

N. HACIOGLU: Sorry, we are not talking about the size of the state, we are talking about actions.

E. SATANOVSKY: A great power is not size.

O. BYCHKOVA: How far is Turkey’s readiness to go in this story? What are the options?

N. HACIOGLU: I can answer as an amateur - she can go as far as the situation forces her.

M. ABBAS: It is generally very difficult for Turkey to accept this. Let's think about internal factors. We have Kurds who are fighting - they are not just opposition, but they receive a lot of support from the Syrian regime, we have Alawite Turks who live on the border - this is also a factor of destruction. And war itself is a factor of destruction. It's not easy to make such a decision. But on the other hand, we saw the first blow from the Syrian regime, when it apologized and said that this would not happen again - but it did.

E. SATANOVSKY: If we assume that this is a regime.

M. ABBAS: I proposed a solution - introduce “blue helmets”, then there will be no doubt whose weapon it is or whose shell it is.

E. SATANOVSKY: What about you, when and where are the “blue helmets”...

M. ABBAS: Then you will be satisfied - whose weapon is this?

E. SATANOVSKY: In no case will I do so for the reason that the “blue helmets” are a UN organization, this is one of the most useless and costly fraudulent adventures of the UN.

O. BYCHKOVA: But it worked in the Balkans.

E. SATANOVSKY: It didn’t work. It very much depended on whose contingent it was.

O. BYCHKOVA: Nevertheless, they got in between.

E. SATANOVSKY: If we take the average - who stood up and who didn’t stand up, and what was the role when they removed the “blue helmets” from the path of the columns that went to genocide - there was a lot of this. The situation in Southern Lebanon has completely failed, and in many places. Therefore, no “blue helmets” - paint whoever you want - will play any role in this case. The Turkish army is certainly one of the most professional in the world. And if its leadership makes the appropriate decision, agreed upon, or gives the appropriate order politically, there will be a war. If he doesn’t accept it, there will be no war. Inshallah.

O. BYCHKOVA: We see that in this situation the helplessness and incapacity of international institutions is manifested very clearly.

M. ABBAS: I’m already starting to think that everyone benefits from this position.

N. HACIOGLU: Of course. Because no one wants to take the first step.

M. ABBAS: I believe that I am a peace-loving person and I believed that the international community thinks about peace more than about war.

E. SATANOVSKY: It doesn’t think about anything at all.

M. ABBAS: But the situation shows that they are thinking more about war.

O. BYCHKOVA: Or the international community, like the Security Council and the UN, and all their structures - they, perhaps, think about peace more than about war, but have simply exhausted their capabilities?

M. ABBAS: Then let them hand over the mandate and say: we can no longer cope with this matter.

E. SATANOVSKY: They do not have a mandate and never have had one.

M. ABBAS: I'm speaking in general.

O. BYCHKOVA: No one can influence the situation in Syria. And before that we observed Libya and Iraq.

N. HACIOGLU: Based on the fact that the regime is interested in provoking a war with Turkey, because the “Divan” party, which sits and looks at this, will naturally support it, and it creates a very serious front and this will be its natural support - if the regime's allies will put pressure on him so that he does not take such an adventure, then there will be no war.

O. BYCHKOVA: But this is final suicide for him.

N. HACIOGLU: There was such pressure from the Russian Foreign Ministry when the first bombing took place. But whether the allies will be able to continue is the main question.

E. SATANOVSKY: Russia is not an ally of the Assad regime, it is a party that has its own point of view on what is happening in Syria.

O. BYCHKOVA: Unselfish, unfounded.

E. SATANOVSKY: Selfless or not, this is a question for Vladimir Vladimirovich and Dmitry Anatolyevich. The fact is that Iran, of course, is Assad’s ally and is actively manifesting itself as such. Unlike all previous wars between Syria and its neighbors, there are no Soviet military personnel there today.

O. BYCHKOVA: Thank God.

E. SATANOVSKY: And in this regard, the fact that the Russian position after Libya does not coincide and does not coincide with the position of NATO, or the West as a whole, or the position of the Arabian monarchs is clear even to a hedgehog. Therefore, as for the allies, this concerns Iran. But he is also Turkey’s neighbor, and an important neighbor, and if he makes an important decision, then maybe Assad will listen. But in any case, the logic of regime survival for Assad will be the main one. He understands perfectly well that the fall of the regime means the physical liquidation of him, his family, and a significant part of the Alawites, that this country will no longer exist and that all sorts of fairy tales about democracy in the Arab world are good in the West, but they don’t even work in Russia for the locals, but They don’t even take place in Syria.

M. ABBAS: It seems to you there.

E. SATANOVSKY: It seems to me that there is a civil war there? You mean those bandits from Algeria, Egypt, Libya, Al-Qaeda...

M. ABBAS: Let's agree - they fought against Israel in the south of Lebanon. Were there mercenaries there too?

E. SATANOVSKY: I call volunteers bandits. I called them bandits in Afghanistan - your Arab bandits from all over the world, I called them and still call them bandits in Chechnya. And for you they are volunteers.

M. ABBAS: Afghanistan and Chechnya are foreign lands, but in the Arab world there is Arab solidarity. If you don't know this, that's a different problem.

E. SATANOVSKY: Go and hang yourself with your Arab solidarity together.

O. BYCHKOVA: You’re wrong, Evgeniy.

E. SATANOVSKY: Yes, as it is. Because Arab solidarity was worth...

M. ABBAS: I'm just silent.

E. SATANOVSKY: I'll tell you - you are fighting with us from Afghanistan with your Arab solidarity.

O. BYCHKOVA: Abbas is not fighting with you.

M. ABBAS: Don't scare me.

E. SATANOVSKY: Who scares you? Look at yourself in the mirror.

M. ABBAS: Don't say that. The Arabs who fought in Afghanistan are not Arabs who live in Arab countries. And, by the way, a Russian citizen, a Chechen, also fought in Syria - he was recently buried. So let's not make a mess out of honey and fish.

O. BYCHKOVA: We will proceed from the fact that there are bandits and non-bandits - people who have different motivations. They write to you here: “You support the Damascus butcher” - let’s not discuss in such terms. Funny.

E. SATANOVSKY: If I supported, I would be at the front. But in this case, I support the Westphalian system together with Russia, which says that there is a country, a state, on its territory, with its own terrorists, a civil war. The state is sorting it out. And when does solidarity begin there? We also had it during the Civil War - either Bela Kun came in and massacred a bunch of people in Crimea, or other volunteers.

O. BYCHKOVA: I see. But treating these people, terrorists or non-terrorists, does not change the fact that they exist and that other people have to deal with it. One question remained without proper clarification - Iran and Syria, Iran and Türkiye. What interest could Iran have in this situation?

N. HACIOGLU: It has long been known that Iran and Syria are one tandem in the Middle East, which, at least, is weighed down by our Israeli factor in the region. If they are separated, then, of course, Iran’s position around Israel will weaken. Therefore, it is believed - at least most observers believe so - that the door to Tehran opens from Damascus.

M. ABBAS: We have a very serious alliance - Tehran-Baghdad-Damascus-Hezbollah. Moreover, two years ago, before the revolution in Syria, Baghdad complained to the UN because it was receiving Syrian terrorists. Now he has changed his position. And this is very connected with the national interests of Iran. Iran supports the Assad regime because they have their own interests in the region. Hezbollah is a Lebanese but mainly Persian party. I witnessed how this party was born in Lebanon. So this alliance is Iran's main stick to protect its interests in the region. And before the Arab Spring, we had a regional player, Iran, Turkey and Israel. And there is a conflict between them - to protect their interests in the Arab region, when the owners of the region have no place in this conflict.

E. SATANOVSKY: Does Israel have an interest in the Arab region?

M. ABBAS: Of course. They live right in the region.

E. SATANOVSKY: Thank God, they do not live directly in the region, but on the sidelines.

M. ABBAS: In the center of the region. Therefore, it is natural that this alliance is Iran’s main stick to protect its interests in the region.

N. HACIOGLU: Still, I prefer to focus on Syria, so as not to confuse it with Iran for now, although many are trying to do this. Whether they have common interests or not - at the moment they are interested in the security of the territory - sovereign states. Any sovereign state has the right to react, respond and ensure the safety of its population. That's what I would say about our topic.

O. BYCHKOVA: Because there are now 100 thousand refugees?

N. HACIOGLU: Several months ago I raised this question as a question of the prospects for a huge crisis in the future. At that time there were still 10-15 thousand of these refugees. Today there are already 100 thousand of them on Turkish territory alone, not counting other neighboring states with Syria.

O. BYCHKOVA: Several times journalists came to the studio who traveled to the border with Syria, to refugee camps, where there are different people with different tasks and functions. And there, indeed, one gradually gets the impression that in the areas of the camps a new outbreak of unknown reason is ripening. Because these are people who cross the border back and forth several times, who infiltrate Turkey and want to stay there.

N. HACIOGLU: There is a simple way - if Turkey were a state that is extremely selfish about the problem of Syria, then it would send out a squad of machine gunners, and let at least one refugee try to get into the Turkish side - they could do that.

E. SATANOVSKY: Close the border with Kurdistan Türkiye. Of course he can't. Therefore, if Turkey had not actively supported the Free Syrian Army, other opposition groups would not have actually participated, without declaration, in the civil war.

M. ABBAS: You are talking about your own again. They pulled out their old record.

O. BYCHKOVA: Is Türkiye really interested in there being a mess?

E. SATANOVSKY: She may not be interested in anything - she participates as a rear in the organization of the civil war and the operation to overthrow Assad.

O. BYCHKOVA: To - what?

E. SATANOVSKY: This is a question for Erdogan. Therefore, it would be strange if the fighting in the border zone avoided Turkish territory. Anyone who throws a stone at a neighbor's house must always wait for an answer. This is where it happens. There is no big war yet. It is unlikely that it will happen, but in principle it cannot be ruled out.

O. BYCHKOVA: How long will this story and confrontation last in Syria, which will end either in victory or defeat for Assad?

E. SATANOVSKY: In Lebanon it lasts for decades. The civil war in Syria is reaching an intercommunal level and we will simply have a Lebanon like this - a massacre of all against all, the size of Syria. Whether Syria will be against Assad is a big question. There were 25 coups before his father seized power. And in the 30s it was just a few states.

M. ABBAS: It is difficult to guess whether there will be a war. The situation is very difficult. But when this is all over, nothing terrible will happen - 25 million Syrians will remain, we are done with them, and then there will be nothing in Syria - Assad will be left alone. Therefore, of course not - the situation is complicated, everything continues, and until the opposition is united, until there is a specific center of opposition, military and political, Assad, of course, will continue to shoot, kill and arrest.

E. SATANOVSKY: So far he is winning his civil war.

M. ABBAS: It only seems.

O. BYCHKOVA: Nobody wins.

M. ABBAS: Assad has already lost a lot. Assad can no longer continue to be president - after so many people have been killed.

E. SATANOVSKY: The Syrians will decide this.

M. ABBAS: I'm half Syrian, so I have half the voice.

E. SATANOVSKY: Poor Syria.

O. BYCHKOVA: Nerdun, you know better.

N. HACIOGLU: Nothing of the kind. War is a terrible and involved business, with politics, different countries and much more. The fact that I am from Turkey does not allow me to think that I can predict with accuracy whether there will be a war or not. This war is not profitable for Turkey. It is in Turkey’s interest that the conflict in Syria ends quickly and, apparently, Turkey is in favor of the situation in Syria being resolved.

O. BYCHKOVA: Thank you very much.