Will Syria be the West’s next Iraq

The world is staring at another military intervention by the United States and its allies in Syria to punish the Assad government for allegedly using chemical agents leading to hundreds of deaths of civilians. The authorities in Damascus vehemently deny it and Russia blames the opposition in Syria for the attacks. While Britain has asked the permanent members of the UN Security Council to act on the alleged attack, the US is consulting Britain, France and its Arab allies with a view to determining the kind of military intervention to be undertaken. Most experts believe it will consist of precision attacks on specific targets from a US warship already in the Mediterranean. The US seems to have given up on the Security Council acting on an intervention request in view of almost certain vetoes from Russia and China. The Arab League has given its support by blaming the Assad regime for the chemical attacks. The Arab and larger West Asian world are deeply divided between Saudi Arabia, the other Gulf monarchies and Turkey on one side and Iran, the Lebanese Hezbollah movement and their respective superpower patrons on the other. The Western, especially American dilemma is that there is understandable outrage in these countries over the use of chemical agents for large-scale deaths of civilians, the first time after Saddam Hussein’s use of poison gas for mass killings of Kurds in Halabja. But apart from France, there is little appetite in the West for getting entangled in another war in the region. For the United States, the dilemma is even more acute. President Barack Obama famously drew red lines for Syria on the use of chemical weapons. In a sense, he has nowhere to hide even though Americans are loath to be involved in another war in the region after Iraq and Afghanistan, and after the US administration loudly broadcast its pivot to Asia policy. Ironically, UN inspectors are on the ground in the affected areas outside Damascus collecting samples and are expected to report back to UN headquarters in New York on Monday. But the way events are developing it is possible that cruise missiles will fly into Syria while the inspectors are still there. The plan seems to be to make a point by targeting key military targets in Syria in the hope that it will not expand the conflagration. The risks, of course, are obvious. As it is, close to two million Syrian refugees have fled to neighbouring countries and the sectarian violence between Shias and Sunnis is igniting the neighbourhood, with Lebanon’s fragile ethnic and religious make-up being the first casualty. The Hezbollah movement is helping the Assad regime militarily, leading to bomb attacks on their Beirut stronghold resulting in many deaths. The likelihood of some kind of military intervention is increasing by the hour as the scale of deaths in Syria, apparently past the 100,000-mark, is an indictment of the prevailing state of power play, and the use of chemical weapons has brought a horrendous equation to an already combustible mix. Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN and Arab League mediator on Syria, has added his voice to appeal to the major powers to use the mechanism of the UN Security Council to resolve the issue diplomatically. Indeed, on the political plane, there is a deadlock — Syria’s fate hangs in the balance as outside proxy powers negotiate their competing interests. There are no easy answers to a problem that has exploded even as Syria has descended into more than two years of strife. For the West, the choices appear equally bleak. On one side is President Assad, belonging to the minority Alawite sect determined to hold on to power, and on the other a ragtag army of opponents, the most effective of whom are Al Qaeda-affiliated fighters. While the Obama administration had formally agreed to arm the opposition to a point, no weapons seem to have been sent for fear that they will fall into wrong hands. Others, particularly Saudi Arabia, have been active in keeping the opposition well supplied, except in arms of the most lethal variety. Diplomatic moves by Britain and others are more in the nature of foreplay to a near-certainty of military intervention. The danger, of course, is that even symbolic military strikes could lead to a major conflagration in an already volatile area. Russia is warning of consequences if the West does strike militarily on Syrian targets. But since it, together with Iran, has espoused and supported the Assad regime with arms and diplomatic cover, Moscow’s ability to play the role of a peacemaker is compromised. An inevitable character in the mix is Israel whose protection is a key American interest. The greater the conflagration in the region, the greater is Israel’s vulnerability. No wonder Israel is buttressing its defences on the occupied Golan Heights while the laboured American formula to restart talks with Palestinians has become a victim of a fresh Israeli incursion killing Palestinians. If the present crisis is reminiscent of a witches’ brew, there is much blame to go around. But the question right now is whether it is too late to prevent the region from going over the brink. It really boils down to the West waiting for the UN inspectors’ report. The irony is that these inspectors’ brief is to assess whether chemical agents have been used, not assign blame to the Assad government or the Opposition.

The writer can be contacted at snihalsingh@gmail.com