Russia, Turkey and Iran cooperate in the solution of the Syrian crisis. USA absentees.

After the attack the Russian ambassador in Turkey, the Ankara government, Moscow and Tehran have agreed to act as a kind of guarantor in the peace talks between the Syrian government and the opposition. The three countries have common interests to the Syrian war, including the potential and long awaited post-war period, it can not compromise its internal and international interests of the respective situations. For all three states it is necessary that Syria retains its territorial integrity: for Turkey is now necessary that Assad remains in power to contain the ambitions of the Kurds and prevent them establish their own independent state on the border with the country turkish, Iran is important to keep in power in a Shia government guidance Syrian state, because that makes it a totally reliable ally, Russia is equally important to keep Assad in power, because it is able to maintain active the only naval base Russian in the Mediterranean and, above all, continue to play a key role in the Syrian affair, allowing him to play again a role of great power, which had not happened since the fall of the Soviet Union. However, this involvement exposes the three countries to a possible involvement in terrorist acts, of which the Russian ambassador attack in Turkey, certainly constitutes something more than a warning. To avoid as much as possible to be the target of the three-state terrorism must ensure the peace process, who can protect both the civilian population, the parties that come out losses from the conflict. All three governments, although not known for respect for human rights, are well aware of having to contain the possible will to Assad to carry out a violent repression of the defeated groups, because only would give an opportunity to an extension of the conflict, maybe with guerrilla and terrorist actions, both on the Syrian home front, either exporting their own in the three countries of Damascus allies. If for Turkey, this danger seems to be already begun, not only thanks to the action of the Kurds, but also of the Islamic State, the other two were this scenario is still avoidable. Certainly Russia is more likely, because on its territory there are several Islamic fighters returned from the Syrian and Iraqi theaters of war and the presence of a Muslim fundamentalism deeply entrenched in the southern territories. Iran, with its repressive apparatus, appears to be less at risk, but the exasperation of the Sunni minority could bring unrest and the possibility of attacks. Then for all three remains present the possibility of being hit on foreign territories, as happened with the Russian ambassador in Turkey. We can appreciate how the need to become guarantors of a peace process that limits the maximum reprisals by the victors become a supranational requirement, which goes beyond, that is, internal negotiations on the Syrian country. There are however some doubts about the cooperation that can be developed between Moscow and Ankara. Turkey has taken place, with the death of an ambassador, a very serious breach of international law, as was stressed by the head of the Russian government ela tension that has risked between the two countries amounted only to the immediate aftermath of the killing Russian military aircraft from the army turkish. Moscow has been able to impose its presence, by Russian investigators, the investigation of the Turkish authorities: an almost humiliating factor for Ankara, on the other hand the feelings of the Turkish population against Russia, appear strongly opposed, as seen in events that took place in recent days, just near the Moscow embassy in Ankara, for the violent attitude, held by the Russian military in Aleppo. Erdogan himself seems to have bowed to reasons of state, and its geopolitical interests, in approaching to Russia, which seems to be, therefore, instrumental and not sincere alliance. Throughout this evolution of the Syrian scenario, there is still a very important factor to be analyzed: the total absence of the US presence. Whether it's a lack of participation due to the political transition, seems to be little true, perception, rather, is that the absence of a deliberate, perfectly consistent with the intentions that Trump said during the election campaign: that is a progressive disengagement from the international scene, to steal economic and political efforts by the external scenario in favor of what is inside. A clear signal of the next American decadence fortune.