What is next in Syria
Now the United States, France, and Great Britain have dropped their bombs on supposed critical nodes for the Assad chemical weapons industrial complexes, what is next?
This is deja vu all over again. Since the 90s, bombing static known targets without an overall strategy has been the modus operandi of the politicos. Yet, it rarely moves the reality on the ground.
Syria has been a particular bugaboo for the US political and military leadership. We missed an opportunity to assist the Syrians to reshape their country and the region during the Obama presidency and the Trump administration has shown not to be deft enough to navigate the precarious situation.
As Syria drifted rudderless into the swirling abyss, Iran and Russia capitalized on the situation and have endeared themselves with Assad. Now any resolution to the Syrian civil war will have to go through Iran and Russia, who will ensure the continuation of the Assad regime.
What are alternatives? Post World War II geopolitical structures are limited to end the Syrian Civil War. The UN is not a conduit for resolution since Russia (and probably China) would vote against any American, British, or French plan.
NATO should be a possibility but any NATO action cannot include significant US involvement, or many in the world community will see it as another American intervention in the Middle East/Levant. And Turkey, as a NATO member has a different objective than other NATO members, namely to blunt the ambitions of the Kurds to establish their own country. Outside of France and Great Britain, there does not seem to much support of a NATO option (and this also why EU intervention is not likely to happen - especially because of the consequences resulting from the Libyan foray).
Not only are the current structures to intervene limited, but the seven year civil war, with Russia and Iran going "all-in," complicates the consequences of intervention.
No matter how the US, Great Britain, and France try to mitigate potential conflicts on the ground, if more forces are deployed the likelihood of limited direct action with Russia and Iranian proxies increase.
Russia and Iran look to continue flexing their geopolitical muscles in the region. Assad's survival provides positive narratives for Iran and Russia: an Iranian client state with unfettered access from Tehran to Beirut; increased Russian influence in the region; Russian and Iranian access to the eastern Mediterranean; and, for Putin in particular, the opportunity to give the US another international black eye.
We need to ask is the Syrian civil war in America's interest? I would say there may not be direct American interests but as part of a larger international norm, what is happening in Syria should be in our collective interests. The potential legacy of the Syrian civil war is a destabilized Levant where sectarian violence is the new norm. We have already seen the rise of Daesh on the Iraq and Syrian border. In a region brimming with sectarian antagonism, lawless borders, and weak governments, the instance of another terrorist organization rising in the region should be expected.
With an unstable region, the refugee situation will only worsen. Secondary effects of the wider regional destabilization and accompanying influx of refugees will be the continued ascension of populist xenophobic parties. What we have witness in the US and Eastern Europe will only become more acute as voters will be tempted to vote for populists creating close minded political debate.
What is the answer? For the US, the Administration needs to bring all instruments of national power to bear on the situation (diplomatic, information, military, and economic) and develop a cohesive and forward thinking regional strategy for the Levant. This does not mean the typical military leads and then everyone else cleans up after the end of hostilities. The US has worn out its welcome in the region years ago but as the arbiter of international norms, we need to be involved. Our strategy should be a regional approach with the regional countries taking the lead, yes and that does include Iran.
At times we have bolstered Arab League members with military and economic aid, so now the US should be encouraging the Arab League to assist in ending the Syrian civil war. Regional security is in danger so a regional solution will be needed. The situation may not be ripe for the immediate removal of Assad but there should be an environment in which all Syrians do not fear attack and/or reprisal. This will mean Arab League forces are in place to ensure resolution compliance by all parties.
This statement will cause rancor but Iran needs to be involved in any solution as a major player. Let's not be naïve, Iran is already vested heavily in the region and will continue to do so. Bringing them in will hopefully reduce sectarian tension in the region and provide an opening for Sunni and Shia rapprochement throughout the Middle East. So the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran will need to put aside sectarian antagonism and develop a comprehensive resolution.
The UN and EU should be co-leads to coordinate international humanitarian aid and assistance. NATO and the US should be in a support role, assisting with disarmament and securing chemical weapons, a quick reaction force to any new terrorist organizations which try to capitalize on the transition period, and to act as buffer against Russian interference.
We have witnessed the destruction of one country and the world community shrugged as it happened. It took Daesh to control of territory and usher in a horrific reign of terror for the world community to arise from their slumber and tackle one result of the Syrian civil war. We cannot wait for Assad's unencumbered reprisals against those who stood against him once he has full control of Syria to do something. The question is who is going to lead?
This is deja vu all over again. Since the 90s, bombing static known targets without an overall strategy has been the modus operandi of the politicos. Yet, it rarely moves the reality on the ground.
Syria has been a particular bugaboo for the US political and military leadership. We missed an opportunity to assist the Syrians to reshape their country and the region during the Obama presidency and the Trump administration has shown not to be deft enough to navigate the precarious situation.
As Syria drifted rudderless into the swirling abyss, Iran and Russia capitalized on the situation and have endeared themselves with Assad. Now any resolution to the Syrian civil war will have to go through Iran and Russia, who will ensure the continuation of the Assad regime.
What are alternatives? Post World War II geopolitical structures are limited to end the Syrian Civil War. The UN is not a conduit for resolution since Russia (and probably China) would vote against any American, British, or French plan.
NATO should be a possibility but any NATO action cannot include significant US involvement, or many in the world community will see it as another American intervention in the Middle East/Levant. And Turkey, as a NATO member has a different objective than other NATO members, namely to blunt the ambitions of the Kurds to establish their own country. Outside of France and Great Britain, there does not seem to much support of a NATO option (and this also why EU intervention is not likely to happen - especially because of the consequences resulting from the Libyan foray).
Not only are the current structures to intervene limited, but the seven year civil war, with Russia and Iran going "all-in," complicates the consequences of intervention.
No matter how the US, Great Britain, and France try to mitigate potential conflicts on the ground, if more forces are deployed the likelihood of limited direct action with Russia and Iranian proxies increase.
Russia and Iran look to continue flexing their geopolitical muscles in the region. Assad's survival provides positive narratives for Iran and Russia: an Iranian client state with unfettered access from Tehran to Beirut; increased Russian influence in the region; Russian and Iranian access to the eastern Mediterranean; and, for Putin in particular, the opportunity to give the US another international black eye.
We need to ask is the Syrian civil war in America's interest? I would say there may not be direct American interests but as part of a larger international norm, what is happening in Syria should be in our collective interests. The potential legacy of the Syrian civil war is a destabilized Levant where sectarian violence is the new norm. We have already seen the rise of Daesh on the Iraq and Syrian border. In a region brimming with sectarian antagonism, lawless borders, and weak governments, the instance of another terrorist organization rising in the region should be expected.
With an unstable region, the refugee situation will only worsen. Secondary effects of the wider regional destabilization and accompanying influx of refugees will be the continued ascension of populist xenophobic parties. What we have witness in the US and Eastern Europe will only become more acute as voters will be tempted to vote for populists creating close minded political debate.
What is the answer? For the US, the Administration needs to bring all instruments of national power to bear on the situation (diplomatic, information, military, and economic) and develop a cohesive and forward thinking regional strategy for the Levant. This does not mean the typical military leads and then everyone else cleans up after the end of hostilities. The US has worn out its welcome in the region years ago but as the arbiter of international norms, we need to be involved. Our strategy should be a regional approach with the regional countries taking the lead, yes and that does include Iran.
At times we have bolstered Arab League members with military and economic aid, so now the US should be encouraging the Arab League to assist in ending the Syrian civil war. Regional security is in danger so a regional solution will be needed. The situation may not be ripe for the immediate removal of Assad but there should be an environment in which all Syrians do not fear attack and/or reprisal. This will mean Arab League forces are in place to ensure resolution compliance by all parties.
This statement will cause rancor but Iran needs to be involved in any solution as a major player. Let's not be naïve, Iran is already vested heavily in the region and will continue to do so. Bringing them in will hopefully reduce sectarian tension in the region and provide an opening for Sunni and Shia rapprochement throughout the Middle East. So the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran will need to put aside sectarian antagonism and develop a comprehensive resolution.
The UN and EU should be co-leads to coordinate international humanitarian aid and assistance. NATO and the US should be in a support role, assisting with disarmament and securing chemical weapons, a quick reaction force to any new terrorist organizations which try to capitalize on the transition period, and to act as buffer against Russian interference.
We have witnessed the destruction of one country and the world community shrugged as it happened. It took Daesh to control of territory and usher in a horrific reign of terror for the world community to arise from their slumber and tackle one result of the Syrian civil war. We cannot wait for Assad's unencumbered reprisals against those who stood against him once he has full control of Syria to do something. The question is who is going to lead?
Comments
Post a Comment