Tread carefully in the fog of the Syrian war

In the film, "Let the Dogs Bark," Robert De Niro plays Conrad Breen, an expert in manipulating the American press and politics. He helps the American president, two weeks before the election, reverse the negative image he has created by starting a war with... Albania. By inventing an entire media campaign covering a war that is not even being fought, Breen manages to turn public opinion around and ensure the president's victory.

Although this is a fictional story, the US has often had to convince the international community that one war or another is necessary. This was the case with the first Gulf War, the war in Bosnia, the war in Kosovo, Iraq 2, Libya, and now, increasingly likely, Syria. Not that these wars were fictional, but the US arguments in each case were at times vague, and in the case of the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, exaggerated, to say the least.

This should not surprise us, however. The great powers have always found convenient excuses to start a war just to achieve their strategic goals. Thus, at the beginning of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, Bismarck managed to get Napoleon III to declare war on Prussia because of a dispute over who should inherit the throne of Spain, a matter of purely formal value. After the Turkish massacres of civilians in Serbia and Bulgaria in 1876, the Russian Tsar Alexander III used the situation to start military action against Turkey, trying to fulfill the cherished Russian goal of controlling the Black Sea straits. The term “Bulgarian agitation” emerged from the debates in the House of Commons in Britain at the end of 1876, led by the liberal William Gladstone, who insisted on military intervention by England. As then, so now, England follows its own interests above all else, and does not succumb to the temptation to lead "crusades" like its big brother overseas. That is why there was no military intervention in Bulgaria. The parliament banned such an intervention that day for Syria as well.

Even more striking is the case of a German platoon disguised in Polish uniforms, which shelled German positions on the German-Polish border on the eve of September 1, 1939, giving the Wehrmacht a pretext to invade the east. The gas attack in Syria, for which it is still unclear who carried it out, will prove to be yet another reason for a Great Power to declare war. Without shifting the blame for the horrific actions of both Assad’s troops and the rebels, we must be aware that serious strategic interests lie behind the US “humanitarian” action.

The purpose of the war

Most international security experts agree that any potential US bombing of the Assad regime is aimed at forcing the leader to sit at the negotiating table. It is no secret that in recent months Assad's forces have begun to take the initiative in the civil war, especially in the Damascus region. Regular arms supplies from Iran and Russia far outweigh the aid provided by the Sunni Gulf monarchies and the United States to rebel groups, which in some cases hate each other more than Assad. A possible victory for government troops and the ousting of the rebels would mean a major victory for Iran in the region, in which it not only retains its most important ally, but also shows that the expansion of Shiite influence will remain unbalanced.

It is important to emphasize that the Syrian civil war is just one of the theaters where proxy battles are being fought between Iran and its enemies, including Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. The other major territory where Sunni and Shiite forces are clashing is Iraq, where the Iranian puppet government of Maliki is fighting a Kurdish and Sunni offensive in the form of terrorist acts. The US invasion of Iraq disrupted the military balance between Iraq and Iran that the US had skillfully maintained for two decades prior to 2003. With the fall of Saddam Hussein and the failure of US troops to exercise effective control over the territory, Iran established itself as the quasi-master of Iraq. In the battle for dominance of the oil markets, an alliance between Iran and Iraq is, in the long run, sufficient to eclipse Saudi Arabia’s dominant role in the oil cartel, OPEC.

An attack on Syria would now be met with resistance not so much from Syria as from Iran, as the country simply cannot afford to lose such an important ally. This would not happen through direct conflict with American troops, but through rocket fire from Lebanon with the help of Hezbollah and from Gaza through Hamas. Therefore, it is not surprising that Israel, unlike before, does not use military rhetoric against Assad. Benjamin Netanyahu’s government realizes that a war against Syria would mean an attack on two fronts. Even more importantly, if the Assad regime falls, Israel will have to deal with a new government in Syria with the likely participation of radical Islamists. Let us not forget that in 2009, Israel concluded an agreement with Assad to finally resolve the dispute over the Golan Heights, lost by Syria after the Six-Day War with Israel.

The US is in a stalemate

Does the US really want to attack Syria? The answer is no. The US government, however, has no choice. First, because if it does not, Barack Obama will be subjected to severe criticism at home for not keeping his promise that a chemical attack would be the “red line” that would lead to US military intervention in the conflict. Second, Obama realizes that a lack of reaction sets a precedent for an even greater escalation of Assad’s campaign, which sooner or later will lead to the failure of the rebels. US allies in the region are pressuring Obama to intervene, because it is their strategic interests that are at stake. In a situation of slow economic recovery, the US needs more than ever the stability of the oil markets, which at the moment can only be provided by Saudi Arabia.

Third, if the US attacks Syria, it will further strain its relations with Russia. Not that Russia will defend Assad with military intervention, Putin realizes that this is impossible and not worth the risk. But the US could still lose Russia as a partner on several other important issues. One is ensuring the security of supplies for US troops in Afghanistan via the Northern Supply Route, which passes through Russia and several Central Asian countries with close relations with Russia. The other is the support of the “big bear” (even if it may be duplicitous) for sanctions against Iran. Moscow has extraordinary influence in Tehran and Obama knows this. The noose on Iran began to tighten precisely when Russia stopped selling high-tech missiles to the ayatollahs’ regime and decided to end its long-term nuclear program in the country.

Last but not least, China is also against bombing Syria. China's position is more for geopolitical balancing against the United States, to deter American intervention in the Arab Spring countries, where China has a serious interest. Allowing the Libyan action two years ago is now considered by Chinese and Russian diplomats as a mistake that allowed the United States to expand its hegemonic influence in the region. The two Eurasian giants realize that it is time to balance American power, especially when it crosses their backyard.

What will happen?

After the British parliament's decision to reject military intervention, the US has lost a strong supporter in the Eastern Mediterranean. France is also showing signs of hesitation. War is unlikely until at least the end of next week, as the G20 summit begins in St. Petersburg. It would be diplomatic madness for Obama to "command" his troops from the heart of the main opponent of the idea of war. However, the question remains open whether Assad or the rebels will not launch offensives in the next few days in order to provoke the international community. In any case, world leaders must tread carefully, because in the fog of war it is easy to make a wrong move.

Did you like it? Take a minute to support the EKIP on Patreon!