SYRIA’S CIVIL WAR IS NOW A GEOPOLITICAL BATTLE FOR REGIONAL
DOMINATION
By
Jaswant Singh, via StratRisk
As
the West begins to gear up for the centenary of the outbreak of World War I in
1914, the Middle East is being convulsed as never before by the legacy of the
breakup of the Ottoman Empire. Look no farther than SYRIA, where one part of
that legacy – the Sykes-Picot Agreement (See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement ),which divided the Middle East into BRITISH and FRENCH spheres of influence even
while the Great War still raged – is coming to a brutally violent end.
Likewise, the current turmoil in TURKEY is, at least in part, a consequence of
“neo-Ottoman” overreach by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government. In
seeking to establish the type of regional influence that TURKS have not had
since the time Mustapha Kemal Ataturk founded the Republic of TURKEY, Erdogan
has fallen prey to some of the Ottoman regime’s hubris.
The
Levant has, of course, been the scene of countless conflicts throughout the
centuries. Sir Archibald Wavell, one of BRITAIN’S greatest World War II
generals and the penultimate Viceroy of INDIA, wrote in his biography of the
World War I field marshal Edmund Allenby, who led the Allies in the Levant:
“The greatest exploit in the history of horsed cavalry, and possibly their last
success on a large scale, had ended within a short distance of the battlefield
of Issus, where Alexander the Great first showed how battles could be won.”
But
peace still eludes the Levant. As MIDDLE EAST analyst Murtaza Hussain recently
observed: “SYRIA and IRAQ, formerly unified ARAB states formed after the defeat
of their former Ottoman rulers, exist today only in name.” What will emerge
from the present situation could be a fragmented, easily manipulated region.
This
is why SYRIA’S civil war is now a geopolitical battle for regional domination,
with multiple fractures along sectarian lines. As is now clear, no country is
really free of the charge of interfering in SYRIA. While Shiite-majority IRAQ
has attempted to portray itself as neutral, it has permitted IRANIAN flights to
use its airspace to carry weapons to the regime of President Bashar Assad.
IT IS ESTIMATED THAT 148 GROUPS, BIG AND SMALL, ARE FIGHTING
IN THE COUNTRY.
IRAN,
too, has long used its alliance with SYRIA to pursue its interests in the
Levant, which include support for Hezbollah in LEBANON. On the ground,
Hezbollah, which is now openly fighting in SYRIA to keep Assad in power,
asserts that “war is coming to Aleppo,” the ancient city that is the heart of
the anti-Assad rebellion.
Indeed,
according to Lakhdar Brahimi, who serves as joint special representative of the
United Nations and the Arab League for SYRIA, there are an estimated 148
groups, big and small, fighting in the country.
Meanwhile,
SAUDI ARABIA and QATAR – which Middle East commentator Saeed Naqvi has called
the “most vulnerable Sunni kingdoms”
– have attempted “to divert popular discontent along sectarian, Shiite-Sunni
lines.”
This
ancient fracture, papered over by Sir
Mark Sykes and François Georges-Picot 97 years ago in their secret agreement, has now swallowed SYRIA, with
Assad portrayed as some sort of Alawite ogre. Many Western diplomats appear to
be of the same superficial cast of mind as Sykes and Picot, believing that
Assad’s fall from power would remove SYRIA from the IRAN-Hezbollah axis.
DOUBLE EDGED SWORD POLICIES OF SAUDI ARABIA
But
will it? And who or what will replace Bashar Assad? Surely not the ragtag
groups that are fighting Assad’s regime, even if the UNITED STATES may now
supply some of them with arms, as President Barack Obama’s administration
recently announced.
Recent
history suggests just how malleable the elements in play in SYRIA really are.
Consider SAUDI ARABIA’S actions there. As Bruce Riedel, an ex-CIA analyst and
former National Security Council member, recently noted, “Ironically, [Saudi intelligence chief Prince] Bandar was crucial to the
transition in SYRIA from Hafez Assad to Bashar back in 2000, assuring key
Alawite generals, then in the regime, that Bashar was up to the job and had
Saudi support.” Now the same Prince Bandar “is trying to get arms to the
Sunni rebels to oust Bashar.”
Such
long-term unpredictability is why the former EUROPEAN UNION foreign-policy high
representative Javier Solana and the former NATO secretary general Jaap de Hoop
Scheffer assert that talks in Geneva are the only viable way out of the SYRIAN
morass. An agreement last month between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and RUSSIAN
Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov to launch a new political process for SYRIA,
the so-called Geneva II conference, marked a possible opportunity; but hope is
waning even before the talks begin.
Indeed,
one reason for this is that, on the opening day of the RUSSIA-EUROPEAN UNION Summit
in Yekaterinburg on June 4, RUSSIAN President Vladimir Putin confirmed that his
country would honor its contract with Syria to deliver S-300 surface-to-air
missile systems. Putin stressed RUSSIA’S disappointment over the EU’s failure
to maintain the arms embargo against SYRIA, thus permitting each EU member
state to begin arming the SYRIAN rebels.
Now, with Obama’s decision to send arms as well, his “red
line” in SYRIA – the use of chemical weapons – could well create a legacy as
damaging to the region as that of the Sykes-Picot “line in the sand” proved to
be. To arm the rebel groups is,
perhaps inevitably, also to arm their terrorist and mercenary allies. That is
not a recipe for long-term stability.
No comments:
Post a Comment