War-clouds darken over the Middle East

The Syrian conflict has escalated over the last month. Everything seems to suggest that it will escalate even further when the West starts providing the rebels with more advanced weapons. But will it evolve further into a regional war? To answer this question I discuss the strategic interests of the major players, including the US, Israel, France, Iran and Russia.

The Syrian conflict, which started as part of the Arab Spring uprisings in mid-March 2011, has recently intensified dramatically. One could say that the conflict has entered a new phase. Suddenly the surrounding countries have become more actively and openly involved in the Syrian struggle. The war is sucking in, not only the other regional players but also the major world powers. It seems very likely that this conflict will further escalate and become a regional war in which many of the surrounding countries participate.

Over the last few months, many thousands of Hezbollah fighters from nearby Lebanon became openly involved in the battle of al-Qusayr near the Lebanese border in May 2013 during which the government forces won the day. The Iraqi government are also giving tactic support to the regime, allowing Iran to use its airspace and many Iraqi Shiites have joined the war. Iran is providing the regime with strategic advice, weapons, special forces assistance as well as training of military units and has brought the whole Hezbollah-Syria-Iran axis under its control. Iran's ability to project power over the wider Middle-East has therefore also increased. Russia has steadfastly stood with the Syrian regime, providing it with billions of dollars of heavy weaponry. According to various news sources, Russia even started delivery of the sophisticated S300 surface-to-air missile systems for which it will also provide personnel to man them (Russia has previously provided the Syrians with other missile systems).

The rebel forces, on the other hand, are now divided between the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and the jihadi groups like the Al-Nusra Front who is affiliated to Al-Qaeda (there are in fact many different fighting groups). The jihadi groups have gained influence because they were the only ones with a good supply of weaponry (from wealthy backers in Saudi-Arabia). Recently the EU has dropped its ban on providing the rebels with weapons and EU countries like Britain and France, who are already supplying non-lethal materials, are now free to provide weapons too. The US has recently decided that they would also supply the FSA with weapons. Some weaponry has already been delivered to the FSA. The US have also deployed Patriot anti-aircraft missile systems, F-16 fighter jets and about a thousand marines to the Jordanian side of the border where they are involved, with the Saudis, with the training of rebel forces (six Patriot batteries manned by 1000 American, German and Dutch servicemen have previously been deployed on the Turkish-Syrian border).

How will the Syrian war unfold in the future? In this essay, I discuss this question through an evaluation of the strategic interests of all the major players. Countries typically do what is in their strategic interests. I focus on the US, Israel, France, Iran and Russia. Although countries like Britain [1], Turkey, Qatar, Saudi-Arabia and others are also involved, their interests are for the most part aligned with the US.  

The US and the Syrian conflict

The US has for a long time kept their distance from the Syrian conflict due to the fact that the American public is war-weary after the decade-old war in Afghanistan (not to mention the wars against Iraq). President Obama has been portrayed as a "man of peace" that would do everything in his power to promote peace – and any direct involvement in the conflict could be viewed by his supporters as a betrayal of that ideal. Although Obama has expressed open support for the ideals of the Arab Spring, namely of human freedom and democracy, and has even called the promotion of such ideals part of the strategic interest of the US, these are not in itself a strong enough reason to become involved in the Syrian conflict. There are, however, other strong incentives. Among these are

1. Moral considerations. The Syrian conflict has already resulted in about 100 000 dead, 1.6 million refugees and 4.25 million displaced people within the country itself. The Syrian regime is by far the party who is primarily responsible for the pain, misery and destruction. This provides a very strong moral incentive to try and stop the Syrian regime from continuing doing this. The recently appointed National Security Adviser to President Obama, Susan Rice, is a strong advocate of intervention, mentioning the Rwanda genocide in this regard.

2. Israel. The US administration has a strategic agreement to secure Israel's security which has been endangered by recent developments in the Syrian conflict. The victory of the government forces in the area bordering Lebanon has given Israel's archenemy Hezbollah a stronghold in the area directly opposite the Golan. In the case of an Israeli attack on Iran (to destroy their nuclear facilities), Hezbollah would definitely launch a large-scale attack on Israel. As for Iran, they would pose a substantial threat to Israel if they are to develop a nuclear device. To enable Israel to strike Iran's nuclear facilities (with US support), a no-fly zone along the Jordanian-Syrian border would probably be necessary.

3. Reducing the influence of jihadi groups. The US views itself as still at war with Al-Qaeda. The US is therefore very concerned by the growing influence of jihadic and Al-Qaeda-linked groups among the rebels. These also pose a threat to Israel's security, especially if they gain a permanent stronghold in Syria. The best way to stop their growth is to help the FSA develop the necessary structures on the ground and to supply them with effective weaponry. To eliminate the jihadists, however, more direct involvement in the conflict will be necessary as was the case in Mali (with the French involvement there).

President Obama will not be willing to become more directly involved in the conflict if all other options to solve the crisis have not been explored. At this stage the following efforts have been made: three resolutions have failed in the UN Security Council (because of Russian-China opposition), the jointed UN-Arab peace initiatives of Kofi Annan (the six-point plan) and Lakhidar Brahimi have gone nowhere, the Geneva-1 conference ended without a breakthrough and plans for a Geneva-2 conference have stalled. None of the parties have sufficient motivation to come to an agreement. The regime thinks it is gaining on the rebels and the rebels are not willing to let Assad stay in power after all the bloodshed. At some point, Obama might be able to say that he has tried everything and that the only option left is some form of military intervention.

Israel's strategic interests

Israel has until now stayed out of the conflict – although it has twice in the past few months bombed Syrian weaponry destined for Hezbollah. Israel knows that any unilateral involvement from their side outside a broader US-led coalition would harm US interests in the region and could even destroy all prospects for such a coalition. The Syrian conflict has divided the Arab world along Shiite-Sunni lines (Hezbollah, Iran and the Syrian ruling elite, the Alawites, are Shiites) and makes a rather unusual coalition of Western and Sunni Muslim countries possible which could eventually confront Iran itself.

This is also an important reason why the West has been so slow to become involved – the longer the conflict persists, the more permanent and inclusive the grouping opposing the regime would become (for other such reasons see [2]). On 16 June 2013, during a Sunni conference in Cairo, Egyptian president Morsi severed all ties with the regime in Damascus. Even Hamas, the Sunni Islamists in the Gaza strip along Israel's southern border, has separated from their previous allies Hezbollah and Iran after some Hamas fighters who joined the rebels were caught during the battle for Al-Qusayr.

Israel's primary security concern is with the danger of a nuclear-capable Iran. The Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel views such an Iran as an existential threat. Iran has installed 9000 centrifuges over the past two years at its enrichment facilities. Two recent studies have shown that Iran is close to having enough 20%-enriched nuclear material to built a bomb in the time between IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) inspections. Israel knows that the chances of eliminating this threat on their own are small; an Israeli attack would set the Iranian program back a few years at best. The best option is to be part of a joined US-Israel attack on Iran which takes place within the framework of a broader Western-Muslim anti-Syria-Iran coalition. The fall of the Syrian regime (and the routing out of jihadic forces) would have the bonus of isolating Hezbollah in the region.

French strategic interests

France is also a very important player in this unfolding drama. In fact, the French have even a more direct interest in the outcome of the Syrian conflict than the US (that is, apart from the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel). The reason for this is that Syria lies in the EU's near-abroad. As a major EU country, it is of vital importance for France to promote stability and democracy in this region. This was also the reason for the French military involvement in Libya where it played a leading role in establishing a no-fly zone with its NATO allies and provided the rebels with weapons. More recently France was militarily involved in Mali where it routed out the jihadi groups in the North.

France has so far played a major role in encouraging the formation of the Syrian National Coalition as an inclusive government in waiting (something that has not been fully achieved) and was the first Western country to recognize it as such on 13 November 2012. It has established good relations with the fighters of the FSA and has provided them with non-lethal support. It will probably in the near-future start arming these rebels. France hopes that the fall of the Syrian regime (and routing out the jihadists) would lead to the formation of a democratic Islamist government in Syria.

Establishing such a government would be in line with their long-term plan to align the interests of the EU with those of the Muslim countries around the Mediterranean Sea. In 2008 France took the leading role in establishing the Union for the Mediterranean (which includes Syria). The French vision is probably that these countries would eventually in some way become part of the EU (such an EU would be a very strong player on the international scene).

Iran's strategic interests

The conflict in Syria allows Iran to project its power far into the Middle East as leader of the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah Shiite alliance which is opposed to the West. Iran knows that the fall of the Syrian regime would deprive it of an important ally and would leave itself and its partner Hezbollah vulnerable and isolated in the region. Iran is therefore willing to go an extra mile to stop this from happening – especially since they have the tactic support of Russia. Even if the Syrian regime would eventually fall, Iran would still gain a lot by their involvement since it prolongs the conflict and makes any US-Israel attack more difficult. It buys them time.

The Iranians distrust the Western countries. They know that any substantial compromise on their part regarding their nuclear program would leave them more vulnerable to Western attack. In this regard, they take Libya as an example – shortly after Gaddafi disposed of his WMD (weapons of mass destruction) he was attacked by the Western powers. The Iranians believe that acquiring nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent for any such attack. In that case, the Western countries (and especially Israel) would have to accept the outcome.

How should we interpret the election of Hassan Rouani as Iranian president on 15 June 2013? Although he is portrayed as a moderate, he is an old hand in the Iranian establishment with close ties to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, being a member of the Supreme National Security Council since 1989. It could well be that the Iranian strategy is to use his election as a ploy to prolong the nuclear negotiations with the 5+1 nations (the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China) in an effort to buy time.

The Russian strategic interests

Russia has steadfastly stood with the Syrian regime, providing them with billions of dollars of weaponry. I have predicted early in the conflict (before Putin's election [3]) that this would happen. This is the major reason why the Syrian regime is still in power and the crisis is prolonged. Why is Russia doing this in spite of all the war crimes committed by the Syrian regime? The main reason is geopolitical. Syria is the last bastion of Russian influence in the Middle East (except for Iran), being a Russian ally for a long time. Russia has a naval base for its Black Sea Fleet in Tartus which allows them to project their power into the Mediterranean Sea.

Under President Putin Russia has become ever more assertive, trying to stop the growing Western influence connected with the democratic impulse of the Arab Spring. The Syrian conflict provided him with the opportunity to project Russian power as a country that can stand up to the West (the Russian self-image seems to be in need of such assurance), using its military power to try and intimidate the Western powers into backing down on Syria (any attack on the S300 anti-aircraft systems will have to take the impact of casualties among the Russian personnel manning it into account).

Recently during the G8 summit in June 2013, it was clear to all the world that the relationship between Putin and Obama has become very strained. Putin knows that the fall of the Syrian regime would dramatically shift the balance of power in the Middle East, effectively excluding Russia from the region (except for Iran) and leading to a reduction in its influence. Putin's reasons for supporting the Syrian regime could also, at least in part, be opportunistic. He knows that any escalation of the conflict into a wider Middle Eastern war which includes Iran would lead to a dramatic rise in the oil price. And Russia is an important oil producer.

Conclusions

The Syrian conflict has escalated recently. Other role players like Hezbollah (and Iran for some time already) have become openly involved. Countries like the US, France and Britain have declared their intention to provide the FSA with weaponry (Qatar and Saudi-Arabia are already doing so for some time). But countries do not become involved in a war if they do not have strategic interests in doing so. In this essay, I have shown that the interests of the US, Israel and France are in agreement, as are those of Iran and Russia.

The most important issue in this regard is the Iranian enrichment program and their possible effort to acquire nuclear weapons. They believe that this is the only way to safeguard themselves against future attack. But it is exactly this possibility that forces Israel to take action. Israel will, however, not be able to eliminate this threat on their own. For this, they need the US. Although President Obama has seemingly for some time (during his first term) resisted this option, there has been a clear change of mind. The appointment of Susan Rice as National Security Adviser reflects this.

Attacking Iran will not be an easy enterprise. Iran would retaliate against US bases in the Gulf and against US allies. The Iranian involvement in the Syrian conflict makes such an attack even more difficult. At the same time, however, it also provides the opportunity to establish a wide-ranging anti-Syria-Iran coalition which is ready and willing to participate in such a war. And the establishment of no-fly zones over Syria or even along its border with Jordan could provide the space for the US and Israel to attack Iran.

Will it come to that? The fact that the Syrian conflict has escalated, that no peace-deal is in sight and that Russia is in no mood to compromise, do not bode well for the Middle East. It seems likely that this conflict will further escalate when the West starts supplying the rebels with more advanced weapons. And such an escalation could provide the stimulus for an attack against Iran. At that point, the Syrian conflict could easily evolve into a great regional war [1].

[1] Regarding the Anglo-American interest in a wider Middle Eastern war see: Predicting a war against Iran? - an inquiry into war and peace cycles

[2] Die stilte voor die storm?

[3] Oorlogswolke begin oor die Midde Ooste saampak

Author: Dr Willie Mc Loud (Ref. www.wmcloud.blogspot.com)