As the Syrian government makes increasingly desperate and vicious efforts to keep power, pleas for military intervention, more or less on the Libyan model, have become more insistent. This course is morally attractive, to be sure. But should Western states follow this counsel? I believe not.
Those calls to action fall into three main categories: a Sunni Muslim concern for coreligionists, a universal humanitarian concern to stop torture and murder, and a geopolitical worry about the impact of the ongoing conflict. The first two motives can be fairly easily dispatched. If Sunni governments — notably those of Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar — choose to intervene on behalf of fellow Sunnis against Alawis, that is their prerogative but Western states have no dog in this fight.
Generalized humanitarian concerns face problems of veracity, feasibility, and consequence. Anti-regime insurgents, who are gaining on the battlefield, appear responsible for at least some atrocities. Western electorates may not accept the blood and treasure required for humanitarian intervention. It must succeed quickly, say within a year. The successor government may (as in the Libyan case) turn out even worse than the existing totalitarianism. Together, these factors argue compellingly against humanitarian intervention.
Foreign policy interests should take precedence because Westerners are not so strong and safe that they can look at Syria only out of concern for Syrians; rather, they must view the country strategically, putting a priority on their own security.
Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has helpfully summarized in The New Republic reasons why a Syrian civil war poses dangers to U.S. interests: The Assad regime could lose control of its chemical and biological arsenal; it could renew the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) insurgency against Ankara; regionalize the conflict by pushing its Palestinian population across the Jordanian, Lebanese, and Israeli borders; and fight the Sunnis of Lebanon, reigniting the Lebanese civil war. Sunnis jihadi warriors, in response, could turn Syria into the global nexus of violent Islamist terrorism — one bordering NATO and Israel. Finally, he worries that a protracted conflict gives Islamists greater opportunities than does one that ends quickly.
To which I reply: Yes, the weapons of mass destruction could go rogue but I worry more about their ending up in the hands of an Islamist successor government. A renewed PKK insurgency against the hostile government ruling Turkey, or increased Sunni-Alawi tensions in that country, hardly rank as major Western concerns. Expelling Palestinians would barely destabilize Jordan or Israel. Lebanon is already a balkanized mess; and, as opposed to the 1976-91 period, internal fighting underway there only marginally affects Western interests. The global jihad effort has limited resources; the location may be less than ideal, but what better than for it to fight the Pasdaran (Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps) to the death in Syria?
As for time working against Western interests: even if the Syrian conflict ended immediately, I foresee almost no prospect of a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional government emerging. Whether sooner or later, after Assad and his lovely wife decamp, Islamists will likely seize power, Sunnis will take vengeance, and regional tensions will play out within Syria.
Also, overthrowing the Assad regime does not mean the sudden end of Syria’s civil war. More likely, Assad’s fall will lead to Alawi and other Iranian-backed elements resisting the new government. Moreover, as Gary Gambill points out, Western military involvement could embolden opposition to the new government and prolong the fighting. Finally (as earlier was the case in Iraq), protracted conflict in Syria offers some geopolitical advantages:
-
– It lessens the chances of Damascus from starting a war with Israel or re-occupying Lebanon.
– It increases the chances that Iranians, living under the thumb of the mullahs who are Assad’s key ally, will draw inspiration from the Syrian uprising and likewise rebel against their rulers.
– It inspires greater Sunni Arab anger at Tehran, especially as the Islamic Republic of Iran has been providing arms, finance, and technology to help repress Syrians.
– It relieves the pressure on non-Muslims: indicative of the new thinking, Jordanian Salafi leader Abou Mohamad Tahawi recently stated that “The Alawite and Shiite coalition is currently the biggest threat to Sunnis, even more than the Israelis.”
– It foments Middle Eastern rage at Moscow and Beijing for supporting the Assad regime.
Western interests suggest staying out of the Syrian morass.
Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
Part 1 father of the neutron bomb Sam Cohen Z”L Believes Iran already has a Number of ready Nukes.
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=3643
@ Yidvocate:
Lets’ make some assumptions.
A- Iran has already mastered the nuclear cycle so they have the knowledge.
B- From what I have read their problem is in weaponizing their current capability to fit the delivery systems they have procured and developed namely ICBM’s.
C- they certainly could have and probably did purchase some nukes from N Korea.
D-They may have all the necessary components but have yet to engage in final assembly
E- Rather than burying all their fissile material under mountains they could store them in warehouses in downtown Tehran or both locations.
F- Israel only knows what it knows and doesn’t know what it doesn’t know which could be critical when considering possible unintended consequences.
G- The elimination of Iran’s ability to retaliate is as critical as eliminating the nuclear threat. Can Israel accomplish such a complicated mission?
H- Does Israel have the military capability to eliminate or render ineffective Iran’s nuclear program sufficiently to eliminate any threat in the near future?
I- Do the Israeli military and our political leadership have the guts to use whatever is necessary including Nukes to insure success of a military attack on Iran, bearing in mind that we were too afraid to use our power to defeat both Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza and have allowed both to arm themselves with rockets and missiles in the tens of thousands?
****Logic would dictate that if Israel were serious about attacking Iran they would have already done so before Iran had reached their present capabilities and before their protection of assets rendered many if not most sites virtually immune to attack based on Israels known capabilities and apparent weaknesses. That said, Who knows with BB our cowardly PM?
father of the neutron bomb Sam Cohen Z”L Believes Iran already has a Number of ready Nukes. See interview on PJTV
@ yamit82:
Can’t be too late. Yesterday would have been better but as long has Iran does not have a nuclear retaliation capability, it is not too late.
I couldn’t agree more with Daniel Pipes.
@ Yidvocate:
Already too late!!
Right now is the best window of opportunity for Israel to take out Iranian nuclear capabilities. Obama is powerless to stop Israel pending the November election; Syria has it’s hands too full; Hamas has parted ways with Iran and has come over to the Egyptian Sunni camp; Hizbullah is preoccupied with the Syrian revolution; Jordan is threatened by it’s own “spring” and Egypt hasn’t consolidated power. It’s not going to get better than this. If Israel is to survive it must strike Iran and there is no better time than right NOW!
Lots of people are interested in Syria: The Americans, the French, The British, the Russians, the Turks, the Iranians, the Saudis, …
…(Israel?)
The last time Israel was invited to participate ALONGSIDE any of the above, was in Sinai in 1956, when they conspired with the British and French. US President Eisenhower soundly spanked the British and French for what they did, and they haven’t dared support Israel since. The operating rhyme here, is:
Jacob the Jew-nosed reindeer
Had a very Jewish nose,
And if you ever saw it,
You would say he must be an Elder of Zion conspirator.
All of the other reindeer
Used to laugh and call him names.
They never let poor Jacob
Play in any reindeer games.
Can anyone here imagine ANY scenario wherein the Jews of Israel are invited to help stabilize the situation in Syria? Forget it! If matters come to a point where Israel is threatened by Syrian rockets and chemical weapons, Israel should QUICKLY move to take over southern Syria, including Damascus. Then the Russians and Americans can do their usual song and dance: condemning Israel, demanding that they leave, accusing them of genocide, etc. — in which case, Israel should stand fast and control the region. The same goes for Jordan, if civil war breaks out there.
If there are US troops on the ground in Syria or Jordan, this complicates matters. In this case, I recommend the “Reagan Solution”: (1) The US goes in to “pacify” the area. (2) The Arabs suicide bomb a substantial number of GIs, and (3) The Americans turn tail and run. But don’t worry: This is an election year, and I doubt that Obama will ever authorize “boots on the ground”.
Israel has a golden opportunity, between now and the US election in November, to act in its own interest. After that, forget it!