Submit :
News                      Photos                     Just In                     Debate Topic                     Latest News                    Articles                    Local News                    Blog Posts                     Pictures                    Reviews                    Recipes                    
The reasons for apparent US inaction in Syria
If it were the Balkans, even President Obama would have intervened in Syria or even if Syria was as resourceful as Kuwait was. There is apparently no reason for the US to join and intervene militarily in the bloody mess that Syria is: neither identity nor urgent economic interest.

It is a rather simpler situation: Syrian air defense is ‘strong’ only on paper and the Russian Federation forces are not going to fight against the hypothetical Pentagon-led NATO attacks in Syria. Not even after the ongoing tussle with the West over the future direction of Ukraine. The fact is that the Russian Federation wants an assurance from Ukraine to join the Russian Federation-led Customs Union: a Russian Eurasian version of European Union (EU); an attempted revision of erstwhile Soviet Union. The EU wants to extend its influence to Europe’s most Eastern parts right next to the Russian Federation borders.

The fact is the Russian Federation is buoyed and bolstered by its symbolic victory in stopping then possible US air-raids on Syria but Mr. Obama is right now contend with preventing Iran from making one or two crude nuclear devices. The fact is that Mr. Putin did help Mr. Obama in his non-proliferation efforts. If the US is able to prevent Iran from going nuclear then Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors and many in the present US Congress thinks that there is not much need to continue prevailing sanctions on Iran as he does not approve of regime change by force. But many US Senators, particularly many Republicans, think so and the road for Mr. Obama to effectively and convincingly lift UN imposed sanctions on Iran may not be that easy.

Mr. Obama is a bit studious though still not academic as he thinks that his policy may promote and strengthen liberal voices in Iran. He wants a coup against Islamist regime through the back doors. The fact is that relief from sanctions would help the status quo and if anything would change in the short-term it is the strengthening of nationalist forces and their mixing with the present Islamists in Iran.

Nationalists could be only fractionally better than present Islamists and they may harden their position on Iran’s nuclear weapon program after getting wider support among Iranian public. The better thing would be to continue engaging the Mullahs-backed regime without attempting to thwart it. But in case Iran is somehow able to assemble a tiny nuclear device or two in future then it would be considered the biggest blow to Mr. Obama’s two terms Presidency on foreign policy and such may render Obamaism redundant. As a consequence, Democrats may lose the Presidential race in 2016 to Republicans, if the proliferation takes place before that.

The added factor is that because of lessening of Iran’s nuclear aggression both the Russian Federation and Iran are becoming increasingly vocal in global politics and on surface are more confidently emerging as regional powers: the Russian Federation in its neighborhood and in the Middle East and Iran in Shiite world in general and Syria in particular. Both are affecting the war in Syria.

In the recent past weeks Syrian army is increasingly gaining foothold in the territories held previously by rebel forces. It is becoming increasingly destructive too and punishing its opponents mercilessly. The fact is that Syrian forces are brutally destroying rebels held townships and other infrastructure. But this makes Syrians President Bashar al-Assad almost intolerable among Sunnis though government forces by selective attacks on civilians are desperately trying to break ranks among rebels and unity among Sunnis.

Rebels on the other hands are increasingly becoming radicalized—continuing to add to their woes. Recently the US and the UK announced to stop all non-lethal assistance to rebel groups though they promised to continue providing humanitarian aid. This is the consequence of great global bargain. Increasing numbers of Syrians are becoming homeless and the numbers of internal and external refugees are expected to double by the end of the next year.

The UN has appealed to the world for an unprecedented, almost 4.5 billion USD aid for those affected by ongoing civil war in Syria. The US administration’s position on Iran is explicitly taking a heavy toll on the outcome of Syrian war: Syrians, particularly Sunnis among them, are considered leftovers by all non-Sunni states in the world.

The world powers, including the Russian Federation and emerging Iran talks about political solution to the bloody armed sectarian conflict in Syria. Mr. Assad has got some reprieve by cooperating with the US-led UN in destroying chemical weapons, though he might have concluded that the days of Alawite dominance are over and just as South African Whites abandoned their country’s nuclear options because the Whites were to be no longer the dominant people in politics, Alawites also decided to abandon their predatory powers, fearing backlash from Sunnis once the latter come to power.

But Mr. Assad can buy only limited time and in the end he has to initiate political process. In Geneva the Syrian government and rebels are going to meet for the very first time in January next year. After killing and destroying Sunnis mercilessly, Mr. Assad and other Alawite political and military elites cannot expect too many Sunnis to support them much. Elections will be held one day and if the international pressure persist then either majority of refugees would return back home before voting or else they would be allowed to vote in their host countries.

Now by no stretch of imagination can 15% Alawites defeat 70% Sunnis, if the latter remains united. Druze Christians would divide themselves between the two major options. This is true despite of some electoral malpractices taking place once elections are held. The honest result is the victory of Sunnis or else the elections could be declared null and void by the international community.

It is this inevitable scenario that Sunnis would take power soon together with almost a guaranteed assurance by the Russian Federation supported tacitly by the West that Mr. Assad and his team would get a certain pardon with a definite exile in countries friendly towards them, which is leading to so much violence and destruction in Syria. Mr. Assad wants to destroy as much Syria as he can before his certain exit from the scene.

The fact is that unlike Syrian government, Syrian opposition is not favored by any non-Sunni nation. This may have to do with radicalization of their objectives as majority among them are now fighting for implementing Shariah laws in Syria. The inclusion of al-Qaeda and allied organizations has added fuel to already volatile situation. But to be fair the US-led Western indecision regarding taking explicit side in the ongoing civil war is also a major factor for things getting that bad in Syria.

No one wants to intervene in Syria: neither the White House, nor the US Congress nor the Pentagon and without US leadership no other Western nation would dare to intervene militarily in Syria. The fact is that Pentagon knows it very well that the biggest generals on earth can prove to their relatively weaker enemies the result of wars. If the Pentagon tries it with Syria, Mr. Assad could develop insomnia.

The longest duration of war that the Pentagon can have in Syria is at the most six month long even though after so much present destruction the Pentagon forces would search for the targets after one or two months into the hypothetical war.

The war, if it at all takes place, would be based on completely new doctrine. The allied forces would always give options to surrender, desert and coup to military loyal to Mr. Assad and the attacks would be halted multiple-times for short-periods. But for good or bad, the Pentagon does not want a neat world and arguably in any foreseeable future it would never wish so. Had it so, it might have thought attacking Syria and ousting Mr. Assad without having to put boots on the grounds. Meanwhile, Shiite radicals can claim victory, which in real sense does not belong to them.

Editorial NOTE: This article is categorized under Opinion Section. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of In case you have a opposing view, please click here to share the same in the comments section.
Email Id
Verification Code
Email me on reply to my comment
Email me when other CJs comment on this article
Sign in to set your preference

Interesting content

merinews for RTI activists

Create email alerts

Total subscribers: 208214
Not finding what you are looking for? Search here.