For anyone who has been critical of the Western narrative on Syria, the ongoing diplomatic circus begs a very basic question: How can the countries that have bankrolled and armed the insurgency honestly broker a meaningful peace deal? Well, they can’t.

The joint effort recently announced by Moscow and Washington to bring the government and insurgents to an international conference, in line with the Geneva Communiqué, is a welcoming development, but some major issues have already come to the fore. There is an ongoing disagreement over who should represent the opposition in a Syrian peace process; in addition to the blatant Qatari proxies in the Syrian National Coalition, Russia has requested that the National Coordinating Body also be present. In stark contrast to the foreign-based SNC (lined with figures who have spent the past few decades in the West), the NCB is the internal opposition, and it has caught a lot of flak, because it opposes the armed uprising and also talks to the Syrian government.

The SNC has maintained it could not accept an invitation to dialogue unless President Assad’s removal was guaranteed. Russia will not allow for Assad’s departure to be a precondition of talks, and U.S. Secretary of State Kerry looks to have shifted the U.S. position by saying Assad’s exit should be the outcome of negotiations on a transitional government, rather than a starting point. Let’s be clear – before this conflict started in 2011, Assad oversaw a political system that was certainly authoritarian. The economy was stagnant, the state poorly handled overpopulation issues, the agricultural sector was suffering from long periods of drought. When Bashar Assad took over from his father, he granted more political breathing space to dissidents, and then back-pedaled on reforms when popular movements fast took shape. In combating the insurgency, Syrian forces killed many of their own citizens in the crossfire. No matter what anybody thinks of Assad, it is not the place of Washington, London, or Doha to decide his political fate.

Let’s look at the situation on the ground; after more than two years of fighting, the Ba’ath establishment is firmly intact and functioning. The state controls the vast majority of territory, there are no major defections, and the business communities in the major cities support Assad. No one denies that many Syrian civilians want to see the end of Ba’athist rule, but the swathes of Assad supporters and their plight are almost universally obfuscated from the mainstream narrative.

Bashar al-Assad, for better or for worse, heads the legitimate government of Syria, and excluding him from any peace talks or transitional government will simply negate the success of peace efforts. If Assad faces an opposition coalition in the scheduled 2014 elections, and international monitors confirm his victory with a fair democratic majority, can anyone expect those sharks and vultures of the NATO-GCC bloc to respect the people’s choice? But let’s not get ahead of ourselves just yet.

It seems like those attempting to broker peace in Syria subscribe to two separate versions of reality. A group of UN human rights investigators headed by Carla Del Ponte has compiled evidence that Syrian rebels were behind sarin nerve gas attacks that killed dozens in Aleppo and elsewhere. British PM David Cameron seems to think otherwise, maintaining the Assad regime holds responsibility; Kerry, too, maintains “strong evidence” exists to blame the regime, despite the fact that UN officials and other U.S. officials say there is no evidence. Despite UN findings, Britain and France continue their push to end arms embargoes to Syria, allowing them to openly arm militants who, more-than-likely, used chemical weapons. The Obama administration is also flirting with providing “direct lethal aid” to the insurgents – as in anti-tank guided missiles and surface-to-air missiles. The idea of flooding more arms into a country where civil war has killed some seventy thousand can only be described as one thing: pathological – not to mention giving weapons to non-state actors that are on record for committing war crimes! It’s ‘bats—‘ crazy. A decade after Iraq, right wing and liberal hawks are again joining forces to call for stronger U.S. military intervention in Syria.

In keeping with U.S. mafia-minded protocol, all options remain on the table, and there is now talk of imposing a no-fly zone and air strikes against Assad’s forces, and some in the U.S. political establishment are behind the use of American and other ground troops to secure Assad’s chemical weapon stockpiles. And all the while, Western mainstream media remains totally complicit and presents an up-side-down version of events to their audiences. As Israel transparently violates international law and kills dozens by striking inside Syrian territory, Russia is the bad guy for honoring contracts already signed to provide defensive weapons to Syria. Western media perpetuates the idea that Syria – the victim of a brutal foreign-backed insurgency campaign, the recipient of numerous Israeli strikes, and a country partially under occupation – having the capabilities to defend itself as totally unacceptable and a threat to regional peace.

It’s difficult to shake the feeling of living in a ‘bizarro’ world when commentators and analysts on television highlight the egregious violations committed by Iran and Hizbullah in Syria, while completely obfuscating the vicious role of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, or the CIA throughout this conflict. Syria tells us important things about the international policy system as it exists; mainly, that some countries can trounce international law, while others must forfeit the right to defend themselves, and that the UN is an ineffective body incapable of meting out justice to global hegemons. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. The odds are stacked against the foundation of a fragile peace. The Saudis and Qataris are pushing for the allocation of Syria’s seat at the UN to the Western-supported opposition.

Nasrallah claims that transfer of the weapons to Hizbullah would be Syria’s “strategic response” to the air strikes that hit the outskirts of Damascus. Syria says any new Israeli assault would bring a “harsh and painful” response. No matter how bad Assad is, the ‘Tablianization’ of Syria is no solution. As this regional conflict deepens and Syria teeters on red lines of all sorts, the world cannot expect ruthless purveyors of violence to become effect purveyors of peace.  

— RT