The Middle East facing the unknown
Eyad Abu Shakra/Al Arabiya/October 24/15
There is no agreement yet among those following the Syrian situation as regards what Washington thinks of Russia’s direct involvement in combat. Most comments and analyses seem closer to smart guesswork than reliable information. Three different opinions on Washington’s Russia policy. Some analysts see nothing new in Washington’s virtual silent consent, pointing to its policy towards Syria for more than four years.
These include those who suggest that this silence may be partly attributed to some sort of tacit agreement that gives Russia a free hand in Syria in return for Moscow’s acceptance of a Washington-run Iraq. Others give the Obama administration the benefit of the doubt; believing that Washington is actually pulling Russia into a terrible quagmire which would damage its standing, while relieving itself of its traditional enemy.
A third group of analysts reckon that in order that Iran’s strident regional ambitions are checked, and the fears of what remains of Middle Eastern Christians and sectarian and ethnic minorities are put to rest, Washington would be happy to commission Moscow to secure Bashar al-Assad an honorable exit while keeping in place the infrastructure of the Syrian state.
All these guesses deserve to be taken seriously, and why not? At least, they make sense, although they are unethical and have got nothing to do with human rights and the right of self-determination.
What are Russia and Iran really doing in Syria? However, what worries many as far as the Russian airstrikes are concerned – and contrary to Moscow’s announcements – is that they are not targeting the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), but rather 9 out 10 strikes are targeting the areas controlled by moderate opposition groups, which are supposed to be the international community’s future partners in the expected Syrian political settlement.
What Russia’s warplanes are doing so far, in addition to aiding and providing air cover to the regime’s land assault, has been to weaken and defeat the acceptable alternative not ISIS, which is exactly what Assad and Iran want. This reality proves false all Russia’s claims about its intentions in Syria; the last of such claims were made by the Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who, while denying “helping Assad,” said that he still recognized him as Syria’s “legitimate president.”
In the absence of honest dealing, the Middle East is indeed moving towards the unknown. On the other hand, Russia is not the only active combatant in Syria. There is also Iran, which is rumored to be preparing a massive land offensive aimed at enabling the weak regime to retake the districts of northwestern Syria, lost to the opposition in the provinces of Homs, Hama, Idlib and Aleppo.
Interesting to note here, in fact, was how Russian air strikes – particularly in Aleppo province – were taking place against opposition areas at the same time these same areas were coming under recurrent attacks by none other than ISIS! Furthermore, Russian heavy bombardment of Al-Ghab Plains (south of Idlib province and northwest of Hama province), Jabal Al-Akrad (in northeast Lattakia province) has nothing to do with fighting ISIS, but rather protecting the eastern borders of Lattakia province, Assad’s stronghold. The same applies to the southern fronts, where Moscow and Tehran are doing their utmost to defend the regime’s headquarters and security facilities in the capital, Damascus, and its environs.
Evidently, no one would like to see a political and security vacuum in Syria similar to that of the post-Saddam Iraq, leading to endless disasters; and sure enough, even the real opposition – not the regime’s fabricated opposition of Qadri Jameel and Ali Haydar – has a vested interest in maintaining a bare minimum of the state’s institutions, reassuring minorities and preventing extremist forces from becoming part of the new decision-making future authority. But it is also true that the international community is neither talking to the Syrians in one voice, nor seriously subduing the regime’s killing machine and confronting Iran’s blatantly sectarian and militaristic regional project.
Iran is now behaving in both Syria and Lebanon exactly as it has been behaving in Iraq, where it is now a de facto mandatory power and sponsor of an armed demographic and sectarian subjugation intended not only to be perpetuated, but also politically and constitutionally legitimized. It is now exploiting the nuclear deal reached with the US and the West, the lifting of international sanctions, and Turkey’s preoccupation with its parliamentary elections and Kurdish Problem, to cement its aforementioned mandate.’
Middle Eastern geopolitics is changing
This highly unclear picture carries with it grave dangers throughout the Middle East; and as the Obama administration enters its last 12 months in office, one may claim that the Middle East Barack Obama first knew, as president, seven years ago has become a totally different place. And as it would be foolish to expect any changes in Washington’s policies during the next few months, what were – for a long time – regarded as “unshakeable constants” in regional politics are diminishing by the day. In all honesty, the roles of Egypt and Turkey may change; and some regional groupings may in the near future lose their cohesion due to diverging outlooks and differing short-term interests.
As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is now gradually moving away from the safety of mutual deterrence. It is now impossible to guarantee anything there, as people are being stabbed and shot in the streets, against the background of horrendous collusion by a Benjamin Netanyahu government hell-bent on collective punishment and provocative shoot-to-kill executions. In the absence of honest dealing, the Middle East is indeed moving towards the unknown. Thus, if Washington does not revise, and fast, its assessment of the regional situation in the aftermath of the Iran-Russia deal under the pretext of “fighting terrorism” through the so-called “Baghdad information center”, the repercussions will be catastrophic.
Russia’s intervention in Syria: Is it all bad?
Abdullah Hamidaddin/Al Arabiya/October 24/15
Russia’s intervention in Syria is a game-changer in a volatile region. This alone is cause for great concern. What makes it worse is that it is an intervention to sustain a regime that has committed countless atrocities against the Syrian people. Saudi Arabia has been vocal in its opposition to the intervention, and government sources have said it will continue to support the Syrian rebels. But with its drawbacks, I believe there are some positive outcomes from Russia’s intervention, which we will see soon. First, the whole security architecture of the region has changed. While the U.S. role is diminishing, it is endorsing Iran as a regional player.
The result is both an imbalance of power and a power vacuum.Second, the Saudis are aware of the impact of this, and have been actively developing their old alliances with great powers such as France and Britain. The recent arms deal with France should be seen in that light. However, the Saudis are also working on building new ties with Russia. The United States will be the main ally for the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) for the foreseeable future, but Washington now requires them to do more to protect themselves. In light of those two points, Russia’s intervention can have some benefit.
The GCC cannot fill the power vacuum left by the United States, at least not in the medium term. Having a great power such as Russia in the region can help with that.This is conditioned on the GCC – particularly Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates – having stronger relations with it. If Russian-GCC interests are interlinked, one can hope that Russia will play a role in checking Iran’s expansionist ambitions.
We should continue to reject Assad, but also hope the Russian presence succeeds in bringing Syria peace.Already we have seen the impact of this on some of the smaller GCC countries. Qatar is moving closer toward Iran in its bid to enhance its security. With the U.S. role diminishing, Qatar had two options: fully bandwagon with the GCC and especially Saudi Arabia, r have a larger regional power as its ally. It opted – as expected – for the second, signing a security agreement with Iran. The Qatari move is of more concern for the GCC than Russia’s intervention in Syria.
Peace prospects
The intervention can expedite the Syrian peace process. The warring parties all agree that there is no military solution to the conflict, but the stalemate had encouraged the Syrian opposition to insist on a full victory. Russia’s intervention has made clear that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will not fall. Letting go of that hope could be a recipe for peace. Most importantly, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorist groups have been growing relatively unchecked. There was hope that their growth would push Assad to breaking point. Now that his defeat is off the table, we may see a more serious campaign to purge Syria from such barbarous groups. The GCC, while not happy with Russia’s intervention, needs it to succeed. Failure will mean the mushrooming of ISIS, and the first targets will be us. We should continue to reject Assad, but also hope the Russian presence succeeds in bringing Syria peace. Moreover, we should cooperate with Moscow in its fight against terrorism because we are most at stake. Most importantly we must ensure that Russia plays a balancing role in the region, rather than supporting one power – namely Iran – at the expense of others.
