Stephen Lendman, a syndicated columnist, activist and radio show host, believes that the real reason John Kerry went to Moscow last week was to convince (or pressure) Vladimir Putin to accept Washington's plan for Syria.
This plan involves making sure that Bashar al-Assad is not allowed to play any part in Syria's future by removing him from power before the peace process is launched. In Syria, "Washington wants a pro-Western puppet of its choosing, supported by likeminded legislators," the Chicago-based political analyst asserted.
In addition, the US also insists that moderate rebels do exist in Syria and cannot be targeted by any counterterrorism campaign in the country. As a result, "Washington won't agree to recognize certain indisputable terrorist groups, including [al-Nusra Front], an al-Qaeda affiliate, responsible for gruesome atrocities against civilians," he noted.
Evidently, it was "a futile mission" since Russia is unlikely to change its stance on Syria. Moscow has long insisted that Syria's future is up to its people, and any groups which adopt radical ideology and use violence to promote their agenda should be considered terrorists.
James Henry Fetzer, retired professor in Madison, Wisconsin, believes that mutually exclusive assertions are "typical of American foreign policy." It follows then that Washington's stance on Syria is part of this trend.
"We had a series of inconsistent claims that 'Assad must go, ' 'Assad doesn't have to go,' 'The US is not after regime change.' It's absurd for the United States to suggest it's not after regime change yet Assad must go," Fetzer told Press TV.
