In principle, in parallel with Russia, Iran began to take similar steps. In June, simultaneously with the increase in the number of flights of the Russian Syrian Express, the Iranians began to modernize a military airfield in the province of Homs, erected a hospital and a number of infrastructure facilities, and also increased the volume of military cargo and humanitarian aid.
However, the hysterical reaction of the United States thundered only now, and only on the actions of Russia. Why she was so late - here is an interesting question for detailed consideration.
The intensification of Iranian assistance did not prevent the signing of agreements on the Iranian nuclear program. Yes, in principle, no one notices (except for Israel, concerned about the strengthening of pro-Iranian Hezbollah). Although against the background of fragmentary and controversial evidence of participation in hostilities of Russian military advisers - participation in the battles of the IRGC (the Corps of Guardians of the Islamic Revolution) is almost no one hiding. This means that Iran’s involvement in the great Middle Eastern war is quite acceptable for the United States, and perhaps even desirable.
The statement of General Breedlove that the United States, they say, do not know what the true plans of Russia in Syria are is nonsense. The fact that Russia's goal is to destroy terrorists and restore Syria’s statehood is known from the very beginning of the conflict. Russian military assistance to Syria did not start today. The United States has come to terms with it and is making its plans to further destabilize the region with its account. The summer intensification of deliveries to Syria and the activity of Russian specialists simply could not go unnoticed, as military intelligence reports are placed on the JCS table (Joint Chiefs of Staff - Joint Chiefs of Staff - the highest planning authority of the US military) - daily. Consequently, either the American bureaucratic system is frighteningly slow, or in the beginning of September something happened that the Americans could not foresee. If we proceed from the second option, then in order to understand what could have happened - let us consider the current situation in more detail.
To begin with, it is worth noting that the prevailing opinion among the broad masses that the war of “all against all” is going on in the Middle East conflict is wrong. Observers are confused by the huge number of armed parties to the conflict, acting as if independently. And the external lack of unified governing bodies in already established coalitions. Although one of the coalitions has such an organ for a long time - this is the military-political leadership of the United States, which has very successfully unleashed the Syrian war and skillfully conducts its expansion to the maximum geographical limits.
Another widely held belief that the emergence of the Islamic State (IG) - a consequence of American incompetence - should be considered controversial. The theory of the escalation of armed conflicts has long been studied and finalized by American military science. On its basis, all program documents and directives related to the sphere of foreign policy and national security of the USA are built. That is, when the Americans systematically and steadily increase the long-known factors leading to the aggravation of contradictions, destabilization, and then to the expansion of the conflict in any corner of the world - they simply cannot help but know what they are doing.
For clarity. The most elementary and elementary factor, which unambiguously leads to escalation, is the supply of resources (including weapons) the weak side of the conflict. What is in Libya, that in Syria, the Americans methodically pumped weapons and other material and informational support for gangsters who initially had no chance to oppose government forces. Further, in order to increase their motivation and stamina in battle, American specialists and agents strengthened the second element in the ranks of the original criminals — the ideological base. The fact that the best base in local conditions is the idea of Jihad was understood by the Americans even when they needed to organize a widespread opposition to OXV in Afghanistan. And therefore, to transform the criminal substrate into a force capable of dumping the secular regimes of Libya and Syria, the United States routinely used Jihad propaganda. At the same time, it is very doubtful that the Americans seriously hoped that the jihadists would later disappear somewhere or re-educate themselves in favor of democracy and the "values of the civilized world." And it does not even matter that the radicals, who are trained in the Jordanian and Turkish camps by American instructors, consider America their main enemy. Those who created this problem at home should spend their material and human resources to fight the problem created by the Americans. That is, the calculation is on the escalation of the conflict, on drawing new participants into it. This is what happens. Where is the incompetence here?
Let's see what kind of coalition the United States was able to put together to promote its interests in the Middle East. No, it's not about the "coalition to fight the IG." This is about the common interests that create coalitions. Interests are tactical and strategic. The maximum common interests in this war are only two. The first is a change in the balance of power prevailing in the region before the war. The second is the restoration of this balance.
The United States began its game for the transformation of the region. It seems to be something better or fairer. Future interested parties have even been shown the desired result - a map of the Greater Middle East (BBI). Well, in fact, it is impossible to start a big mess without a visible image of how “how good it will be later.” So you will not find any allies. And the Americans have drawn such an “image”. But for us it will be interesting not how much this picture will coincide with reality after a certain time, and not how much Americans have been sly by drawing this picture. We are interested in a vector, or rather, a process launched in the south of the Eurasian continent. And there is a great suspicion that the initiators themselves are also more interested in the process. And this process is called - power (passing through armed struggle) transformation of a political map. The result of this transformation is not predictable in principle, but it promises to be long and absorb all the resources of the countries involved in the process.
Many forces joined the process with excitement. First of all, the radical Sunni sects, who dream of recreating the Caliphate and gaining power, if not over the whole world, then on a considerable part of it. If someone else remembers, the current world scarecrow - the IG - has grown out of the offended American invasion of Iraq of the Sunni minority, which was in power under Saddam. Initially, Sunni sects and groups actively fed the monarchies of the Persian Gulf, which, of course, did not want to lose their hereditary power, but only hoped to seriously hit growing Iran and its associated Shiite communities in many states of the region. Turkey hoped to greatly increase its influence, and at the same time solve the Kurdish problem. Apparently, Erdogan was shown another BBI map, drawn specially for him, saying, "this treasure map is for suckers, and we will show you the real one."
All other American "partners", such as European countries or Australia - do not play any noticeable role in this conflict. This is a crowd for voting in the UN and creating the appearance of universal support for American initiatives. Nobody asked their opinions, and they were connected to the process in a notification procedure.
The most motivated and efficient part of the American coalition are all bandit groups fighting for political reorganization of the region. Actually, it would not make sense to sort out the “grades” of bandits, because their strategic interest coincides. To classify them according to the degree of “moderation” or radicalism — almost senseless — they all fight for a place under the sun in a future Islamic state. The fact that the groups periodically fight with each other should not be deceiving - all of them will sooner or later merge and swear to the IG. After all, there are no ideological differences between the IG, Jabhat al-Nusra, the Islamic Front Coalition or Jaish al-Hurr (it’s also the Free Syrian Army). That is why it is ridiculous to hear about the American struggle against the IS, because it is just the most successful of the US allies, the most productively solving the American task of redrawing the political map.
Now about the second coalition. It seems to be no. There are forces interested in stopping the bloody alteration of the world. This is not only the legitimate government of Syria.
This is primarily Russia. It is Russia that has an interest both in its own peaceful and progressive development, and in preserving peace throughout the Eurasian continent. We were quite happy with an independent Ukraine - until a springboard was made of it for an "onslaught to the East." In theory, we would not even have anything against IS if this formation cooled down, took shape and stopped its expansion in all directions. In the most paradoxical way we are constantly credited with some bloodthirsty, aggressive plans, but it is we who actually have the most real potential in the future to become the guarantor of the peaceful development of the Eastern Hemisphere of the planet. After the US turned into a factor of global instability, the position of the guarantor of peace became vacant. And most likely, such “dislike” for us, on the part of the former hegemon, is connected precisely with the understanding of this circumstance. By the sum of natural and historical circumstances, Russia can become much more preferable for the whole world as a guarantor of peace and stability.
Another member of the coalition, as we have already noted at the very beginning, is Iran, which from the very beginning of the conflict, like Russia, has been helping the legitimate Syrian authorities in the fight against bandits. Like Russia, Iran is well aware that it should become one of the next targets for US policy aimed at the bloody transformation of all states that have the audacity to progressively develop in their own interests. At the same time, in the American plans, Iran was given its place - the place of the leader of the Shiite groups in the big Sunni-Shiite war. During the occupation of Iraq, the Americans did not interfere with the pro-Iranian Mahdi Army to arrange a showdown with the Sunni factions that have now become IS. Iran’s participation in the war in Yemen (the underbelly of Saudi Arabia), as well as the assistance of the IRGC to the Assad troops - as we noted above - did not prevent the lifting of sanctions. Iran was necessary to maintain and expand the conflict - as fuel for the fire. But now, when the coordination of actions between the troops of Bashar Assad, Iran and Russia is becoming obvious, everything has changed. Iran is no longer an independent player, like Turkey, hooked on its regional ambitions.
Separately, it should be said about two players.
First, about Israel. This player is much more interested in the peace and tranquility of the region - it is a matter of his physical survival in a hostile environment. This player will never join any coalition (especially with Iran containing Lebanese Hezbollah), and will always rely only on himself. But with Russia, Israel, from the very beginning of the Syrian conflict, has had unofficial coordination through the special services. See the visits to Moscow of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Chief of General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Lieutenant General Gadi Ayzenkot. The strategic interests of Russia and Israel coincide. However, after several episodes when the IDF forces tried to eliminate the threat of the transfer of weapons to Hezbollah in Syrian territory, it would not be superfluous to exchange visions and agree on further actions.
Secondly, it is the Kurds - one of the combat-ready parties to the conflict. At first glance, the strategic interest of the Kurds - the creation of their own state - automatically makes them members of the American coalition. The US has working contacts with part of the Kurdish forces since the Iraq war. Today (to the fury of the Turks) the Kurds receive military assistance from the Americans (admittedly, the Americans often exaggerate it). However, the role of the Kurds in the American plans is similar to the Iranian one - to be the fuel for a fire that should spread to Turkey and Iran. In Iraq, the Kurds have autonomy legally, and in Syria, in fact. The question of Kurdish statehood will almost inevitably be resolved - this must be understood immediately. But another question is what price the state will get to the Kurds. Without real allies, this path will be very difficult.
Today, the Syrian government does not supply the Kurds with arms and supplies and cannot provide legal autonomy without constitutional changes. Only this, until recently, prevented Kurdish troops from joining the coalition of Russia, Syria and Iran. And if the Russian advisers managed to convince Bashar Assad that the time has come to change this situation - the Americans really need to start worrying.
In this configuration, the real anti-terrorist coalition will be under the authority of Russia. And then, as Bashar Jaafari, the Permanent Representative of Syria to the UN, noted, Russia has at least the rights of the United States to strike at terrorists. And if the Americans do not agree with this, then they will have to admit that they are allies of the terrorists, which they really are.