Dahir Sheikh, political analyst, Why regime change in Syria will be another strategic blunder for the U.S. For the last three and so years , most of American strategic community, political analysts, think tanks, and major media outlets have been desperately pushing for a regime change in Syria as though this would be a game changer for US global dominance. The debate has been that toppling Assad will weaken Iran, Hezbollah and Russia and this will further enhance U.S. position in the region. But the alliance between Syria, Iran and Hezbollah on one hand and Russia and Syria on the other hand has been there for decades and that has not seriously afffected U.S. dominance in the region and there is no guarantee that pro-American regime will replace the current secular Baathist regime in Syria, In fact, the only alternative to Assad regime is either Alqaeda/ISIS or ulrtaconservative salafists ( Ahrar Al Sham, etc.), at the best case,all are enemies of the US and the whole West Moreover, John Mearshiemer, a renown American thinker, argues that if Assad regime is violently toppled by the U.S., Iran would be scared and may rush to acquire a nuclear bomb. https://youtube/watch?v=jwqqzh59sVo The Iranians have never acknowledged they are seeking to build a nuclear bomb, however if they choose to do so, a nuclear Iran will be more challenging for the U.S. than Irans alliance with Syria and Hezbollah. A nuclear deal with Iran may be impossible if the U.S. militarily intervenes Syrian civil war and hits Syrian army positions.the only capable force fighting ISIS and Nusra front in Syria. Realistic interests Arguably, Iran, Syria and Hezbollah alliance is not a big deal for US regional and global strategic positioning. In the height of the Cold War, Iraq, Syria, Egypt,Libya, Algeria, Yemen and Somalia were more or less Soviet allies, yet US maintained its dominance in the region specially in the strategic Persian gulf sub-region which is the big prize of the Middle east.Contrary to regime change hawks expectations, regime change project in the region proved to be counterproductive and sometimes self-defeating for the US like Iraq and Libya U.S. realistic strategic interests in Syria would be 1. to stop fueling Syrian civil war and not help the country become Jihadistan, where terrorists can have safe haven and plot against the US and the West at large. 2. to avoid to get deeper into Syria quagmire that may distract U.S. attention and resources away from other important commitments. 3. to push, as much as possible, for a political solution that does not necessarily exclude Assad, but envisions power sharing deal between the regime and the opposition factions who are ready to denounce terrorism and extremism and fight ISIS, Nusra front and others terror groups. The ongoing Russian efforts to restart negotiation between the Syrian regime and the opposition is worthy looking. The United states can have influence on a reformed and rehabilitated Assad regime and can benefit from the Syrian army in the fight against ISIS, Nusra front and other terrorists in Syria. The reformed and rehabilitated regime can have good relations with the U.S., Iran and Russia, like Iraq. Yes Assad is an authoritarian leader and possibly committed crimes, and one can argue US is morally compeled to see him out of power, but the morality is not the main driver behind the regime change trend in the U.S. The same people who advocate Syria regime change are staunch supporters of Al Sisi regime in Egypt which massacred nearly one thousand people in a single day during last years military coup and continue to commit crimes agianst its opponents, they are the same people who strongly supportred and even defended recent Israeli brutal Dahiya doctrine war on Gaza that claimed the lifes of two thousand mostly civilian Palestinians. Alternative Jihadistan Even if the U.S. tries to violently overthrow Assad regime the result could be:1. If the U.S. and its allies conduct Libya like operation in Syria, probably it will take more time and will be more costly than Libya given the Syrian airforce capability, but eventually the regime could collapse and the only capable force that will fill the vacuum is ISIS and/or Nusra front and other ultra-conservative Salafists, whether the terrorist groups will unite or each one will control parts of Syria remains to be seen ( Let us not kid ourselves,the so called Syrian moderate rebels is fantasy as Obama himself acknowledged https://youtube/watch?v=FH1PsRnUoi4). If the terrorists are powerful enough to take control of all or most of Syria, they will massacre the Alawites/Shia/Ismailis, Christians, Kurds,Druze and moderate Arab Sunnis.a new wave of refuges will flow to already strained neighboring countries. In this case Iran may be compeled to directly intervene with its military to defend the Alawite/Shia and other minority population and Shia shrines in Syria and to prevent the country to become full fledged Jihadistan, Qasem Soleimani, Irans Qods force commander, will be tempted to take on recently deployed US troops in Iraq. ( now the Americans and the Iranians are on the same side of the fight against ISIS) Hezbollah already signalled it will attack Israel if it feels that its ally in Syria is endangered by U.S. intervention, since they regard Israel as the main driver of the Syria regime change project. Israels recent Gaza war poor performance may encourage Hezbollah that they can push back Isreal. In the mix the Israelis may be tempted to launch airsrtikes on Iranian nuclear sites,though such attack may be ineffective The Iranians may not have incentive to help stabilize Afghanistan after U.S./NATO withdrawal .What was meant to be war on ISIS an other terrorists could easily become three-way war. A full blown sectarian regional war is likely at this stage. 2. If the U.S. and its allies conduct limited operation, e.g, to take out some of regimes airforce and tactical units, this will severely weaken the regime, and the regime may desist as a functional state, but still maintain some capabilities to control and defend some terrain probably in the coastal region and parts of Damascus, Homs and Hama provinces, Assad may still remain the head of this reduced regime or the Alawites and other communities may take matters in their hands to defend their very existance as much as they can.Syria will be full fledged failed state partly controlled by terrorists partly controlled by Iran allies. Iran is reported to have contingency plans for such scenarios and is reportedly training Hezbollah-type quasi-army in Syria that can effectively resist foreign intervention and insurgency at a lower cost. Russia may retaliate in Ukraine and Baltic states to discredit NATO alliance. Putin may choose to gamble rather capitulate to Western encoachmensts. his recent warning of global strategic instabilty if major nuclear powers collide should not be underestimated,reuters/article/2014/10/15/us-ukraine-crisis-putin-nuclear-idUSKCN0I42FW20141015 Recent meeting between Putin and Syrian foreign minister,Walid Al moalem in Sochi signals strong Russian support for the Syrian government, Syrias demand to get Russian S-300 air defence system could become reality, an all out regional wars in the Middle east and eastern Europe can not be ruled out at this stage.The world would be more dangerous than it is now Both scenarios are strategic nightmare for the U.S. and it might need to fully invade Syria to defeat ISIS and/or Nusra front without foreseeable victory, it will certainly be another costly intervention and may take other decade or more to, at best, contain terrorists in Syria and Iraq, by which time China had overtaken the US as the largest economy in the world and improved its military power. At that time the Chinese will probably thank for those bunch of terrorists (ISIS and Nusra front) who kept the U.S. busy in the middle east for so long. Time to call out Israel The Americans should realize that the Israeli-driven regime change project in the Middle east is not paying off, rather it is costing the U.S. both in blood and treasure and it is causing terrorists to flourish. It is well known that the Israelis have the so called clean break strategy, which aims to destabilize and eventually destroy an divide Middle eastern countries that Israel pereives as rivals, by internally destabilizing them and encouraging foreing intervention. But Israel do not pay the price by itself , it rather,mostly uses American and Western power to achieve its dubious goals which largely contradict U.S. and Western strategic interests. The Israelis, by using their huge influence in U.S. internal politics, media and think tanks, were the main driver of U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which created the messy situation in which groups like ISIS found fertile ground to flourish in the first place and now they are the main outside force promoting current Syria regime change effort by using the same tools. Even the policy of using terrorists against adversaries proved to be disasterous since terrorists are uncontrollable and can turn their guns on old allies as Afghan Majahideen finally turned their guns on the U.S. ( their former ally against the former Soviet Union) Arguably, it is time to call out the Israelis and tell them that their regime change project in the region is causing much problem than the U.S. and its Western allies can handle and they (the Israelis) do not have any realistic reason to help fuel destabilization and terrorism to weaken or destroy their perceived adversaries in the region. The Israelis are the only nuclear power in the region and have conventional military edge to deter any foreign attack. Guns for hire The questions that always come in mind include, what is the strategic wisdom of Washington punditss obsession of Syria regime change? Why most of U.S. strategic community, think tanks and major media outlets are desperately pushing to this end specially when it is clear that there is no alternative to the current Syrian regime other than terrorists?, The answer could be: either they are not thinking strategically and are driven by hubris or they are guns for hire used by Israeli and Gulf states lobbies in the U.S. who are focused on their narrow interests in the region. Stephen Walt, American political analyst and thinker argues U.S. foreign policy is for sale and US think tanks are hook for the highest bider, foreignpolicy/articles/2014/09/19/hacks_and_hired_guns_washington_think_tank_foreign_funding By doing so the regime change hawks in the U.S. are undermining their own countries strategic interests since another fiasco in the Middle east will certainly distract the U.S. from the so called pivot to east Asia where the great geopolitical game with rising China lies and could also push Iran and Russia into the hands of China, even India and Pakistan are poised to become full members of Shanghia Cooperation Organisation. A full blown strategic alliance betrween China. Russia and Iran ( with India, Brazil and South Africa, as BRICS members, arguably leaning toward that camp) ,will seriously undermine if not end the already declining US global hegemony. Other lingering question is: will Obama capitulate to upcoming Republican controlled Congress, Israeli lobby and Turkey/Gulf states pressure and find himself in the Syrian messy civil war, a decision he so far wisely avoided?.One could hope that the U.S. Administration is not foolish enough to repeat the same strategic blunders in Iraq and Libya again and again , this time in Syria.
Posted on: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 11:59:10 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015