At Real Clear World today, there is an article in which the authors argue that the US should stay away from involvement in Syria as that country is not a vital US interest. They also argue that Assad is going to be the leader of Syria and that the US needs to accept that. They also argue that we ought not concern ourselves with secular slaughters in Syria and its neighbors.
So is this correct? Should America run from Syria now that ISIS is about to be destroyed? Let's take a look at what would happen in Syria without any American presence.
1. Assad, with the backing of Russia and Iran, would indeed reassert control over the country. The Sunni rebels are mostly a spent force without American support. If they lost American air support and resupply, it would likely be just a matter of time until their forces collapsed.
2. The Kurds would also be likely overrun. Not only would they face hostility from Assad and Iran but also from Turkey and Iraq. It would be yet another middle eastern ethnic group that would be subjected to ethnic cleansing. After years of the Kurds being our allies, we would be just forgetting them.
3. Iran would have an unbroken highway of Shiite governed territory from Teheran to Beirut. This would allow Iran to send major forces to threaten Israel right on the Israeli border.
4. The chance of ever using sanctions against Iran would end because the other nations under Iranian hegemony would be a porous entryway into Iran.
5. The Sunni oil states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. would be faced with a strong alliance of Iranian led Shiite states with great hostility to the USA. The Sunnis might have no choice but to reach some modus vivendi with the Iranians to America's detriment.
That is hardly a list of items that are not of national importance to the USA. Indeed, just making the list disproves the validity of the contrary claim made in today's article. So what can the USA do to respond? Is there anything other than a permanent American presence in the region that could bring a positive result?
The answer here is one that is rapidly becoming more difficult to achieve. America ought to support creation of an independent Kurdish state on the territory held by the Kurds in Iraq and Syria. This new state would be met with hostility by the Assad forces, the Iraqi government, the Turkish government and also the Iranians. American support for the Kurds, however, might be enough to head off military confrontations between these antagonists. A Kurdish state would block much of Iran's regional ambition. It would also provide an American ally in a region where those are hard to find. This resolution, however, requires quick moves by the USA. If we wait, the Kurdish regions will be dismembered and the Kurdish forces destroyed. That will just insure years more of conflict in the region but with one less American ally.
So is this correct? Should America run from Syria now that ISIS is about to be destroyed? Let's take a look at what would happen in Syria without any American presence.
1. Assad, with the backing of Russia and Iran, would indeed reassert control over the country. The Sunni rebels are mostly a spent force without American support. If they lost American air support and resupply, it would likely be just a matter of time until their forces collapsed.
2. The Kurds would also be likely overrun. Not only would they face hostility from Assad and Iran but also from Turkey and Iraq. It would be yet another middle eastern ethnic group that would be subjected to ethnic cleansing. After years of the Kurds being our allies, we would be just forgetting them.
3. Iran would have an unbroken highway of Shiite governed territory from Teheran to Beirut. This would allow Iran to send major forces to threaten Israel right on the Israeli border.
4. The chance of ever using sanctions against Iran would end because the other nations under Iranian hegemony would be a porous entryway into Iran.
5. The Sunni oil states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. would be faced with a strong alliance of Iranian led Shiite states with great hostility to the USA. The Sunnis might have no choice but to reach some modus vivendi with the Iranians to America's detriment.
That is hardly a list of items that are not of national importance to the USA. Indeed, just making the list disproves the validity of the contrary claim made in today's article. So what can the USA do to respond? Is there anything other than a permanent American presence in the region that could bring a positive result?
The answer here is one that is rapidly becoming more difficult to achieve. America ought to support creation of an independent Kurdish state on the territory held by the Kurds in Iraq and Syria. This new state would be met with hostility by the Assad forces, the Iraqi government, the Turkish government and also the Iranians. American support for the Kurds, however, might be enough to head off military confrontations between these antagonists. A Kurdish state would block much of Iran's regional ambition. It would also provide an American ally in a region where those are hard to find. This resolution, however, requires quick moves by the USA. If we wait, the Kurdish regions will be dismembered and the Kurdish forces destroyed. That will just insure years more of conflict in the region but with one less American ally.
No comments:
Post a Comment