Let’s
say that you feel Iran is the bigger of the two evils and that Tehran,
Hizballah, and Russia cannot be allowed to have a victory in the Syrian
civil war. Therefore, the United States has to supply
weapons to the rebels despite the fact that they are America-hating
Islamists. I can understand that argument but let’s explore the
adventure that the United States and European Union is about to embark
on.
The
cost is the U.S. backing for the Sunni Islamist takeover of much of the
Middle East. The benefit is...denying Syria to Iranian influence after
30 years. Of course, it won't be under U.S. influence. And many wars may
flow from this policy: A Sunni Islamist regime's war on Israel,
Hizballah in Lebanon, the Syrian Kurds, and possibly Iraq (Sunni versus
Shia) and Jordan (Islamist subversion to help the Muslim Brotherhood).
If
the United States supplies enough weapons to just keep the rebels
going, that would be one thing. But American policymakers are likely to
be carried away--as often happens to Americans in this situation--and to
see rebel victory as the equivalent of good, the heroic freedom
fighters battling for the liberation of puritanical Sharia.
It is
surprising that it doesn't seem to bother a lot of people to support
an antisemitic, anti-Christian, anti-woman, anti-gay movement that has
already committed atrocities, whose leading organization also once
collaborated with the Nazis, and about 20 percent of which consists of
al-Qaida supporters?
Also
we have just seen the proliferation of weapons and terrorists following
the U.S.-sponsored support of Islamists after the Iraq, Libya, and
Afghanistan wars.
Moreover,
don't count the rebels out yet despite the hysteria that Assad is
winning. Five weeks ago everyone claimed the rebels were winning.
Moreover, while I don't want the Syrian regime to win, let's remember
that two short years ago the Obama Administration was courting Syria as a
potential ally, treating what was still a dreaded dictatorship as if it
was one step from singing, "Yankee Doodle Dandy." Visiting U.S.
officials and members of Congress became apologists for the regime. For
those remembering these events, the current scene is disgusting.
Suddenly Syria became a ferocious dictatorship. It was always a
ferocious dictatorship. Suddenly it became an ally of Tehran, a stance
that the Obama Administration claimed two short years ago that it was
going to reverse. In
fact, it has been an ally of Iran for more than 30 years.
How
short are memories. Analogies to other recent events are also often
ridiculous--World War Two, the Spanish Civil War--made by people who
know nothing about Syria. In Iraq, for example, there were viable
democratic forces and the United States had real leverage over the
situation. While one might want the overthrow of the Assad regime, that
just isn't true in Syria.
In
Syria, the United States has not just accepted but backed from the
start an exile leadership that not only was dominated by the Muslim
Brotherhood but which refuses to even allow a significant representation
by liberal moderates and the Kurds! If U.S. policy, soon to be paying
the bills and giving the weapons, cannot achieve that then why give help
without conditions? Again, one wants the Assad regime to fall but
cannot Washington even extract any political price for this support of
the rebels? From Turkey to get more support for U.S. policy toward Iran
from Ankara? No.
Will
the murder of Christians and other rebel atrocities incur any penalties
on U.S. backing or not? Everyone should know that the United States
cannot protect one Syrian civilian from murder and persecution by the
rebels. Who is doing who a favor?
The
strategic issues have also not been fully thought out. Iran is not Nazi
Germany and it is going to get nuclear weapons no matter what happens
in Syria. Its ability to project influence into the Arab world is
limited to Lebanon--where the United States has always accepted it
before--and to a lesser degree to Syria and a bit to Iraq. One can make
the case that the Sunni
Islamists, without a big source of money or arms, are less threatening
than Iran. Yet that depends, too, on how Sunni Islamist policy, which
largely means the Muslim Brotherhood, develop. What is needed here are
cool-headed evaluations; what we see is bordering on hysteria.
There’s
something in the U.S. military culture called “mission creep,” that
means the task given the U.S. army is extended far beyond the original
intention. Also, in military affairs nothing turns out to be as easy as
you expect. If, for example, the rebels can't win otherwise will there
need to be a no-fly zone? Or more intervention? All to produce a likely
result of
an anti-American terrorist-sponsoring dictatorship? Or perhaps it can
be bought off for a while by sending billions of dollars of aid to
subsidize a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship. Already we see the war
hysteria building.
So
let’s say that Obama sets a policy of sending only limited numbers of
light weapons to moderate forces. Naturally, though, the U.S. trainers
will not be able to vet every trainee. We know that’s true and there
will no doubt be terrorist-minded and extremist soldiers whose skills
will increase thanks to Uncle Sam. Many of them are young. Perhaps some
of them won 't retire after the Syrian civil war ends.
But
what’s really worrisome is the next step. Suppose the rebels still
aren’t winning. The aides and experts and advisers then explain to the
White House that unless more and better weapons are sent then “our” side
will lose. That can’t happen, right? It will be an even more
humiliating loss to the Russians, Iranians, Hizballah, and the Syrian
regime that not so long ago—just over two years ago--was Obama’s good
buddy.
At that point, there comes escalation: more weapons, more American
involvement, better arms. That is going to be a big temptation and who is going to stand up and say, “No.”
Now
think of the opposite outcome. The rebels quickly reverse the tide of
battle and they are winning. In that case, the officials say, “Just a
little more aid and we can have a big victory.” Once again, mission
creep.
And
what would the U.S. government do if and when the rebels start
murdering civilians. Imagine, there are people who don’t support Israel
and want the United
States to reduce help because it is “immoral” doing certain things. But
they are going to accept rebels cutting off the heads of people, wiping
out dozens of civilians, shooting prisoners, and even eating a few body
parts of murdered Syrian prisoners?
All of these things have already happened and will happen more. And, here’s the big thing, the United
States
will have no leverage to affect this behavior. The leaders are not in
control; the rebels don’t want to do America’s bidding.
Will the aid be cut off at that point? No. Too many reputations will be
on the line; too much political capital will have been extended.
Meanwhile
the Sunni Muslim side and particularly the Sunni Islamist side will
urge the United States on, promising it anything if it puts their
friends in power. Obama will believe that the Arabs love America and
will support U.S. interests. Until, of course, the day after they take
over—or say several months afterward—when the Muslim Brotherhood turns
on America and the Salafists attack Israel.
There
is, however, one possible way out: if the United States can say Iran
made us do it by escalating its own involvement in the war. There is
something peculiar happening after the Iranian presidential election.
On one hand, the media throughout the West is proclaiming that Iran is
now moderate, forgetting that the same thing (the election of a
relatively moderate president 16 years ago) without changing
anything. On the other hand, though, Iran seems to have become more
aggressive and threatening after the election. The Iranian supreme guide
directly insulted Obama, saying he was a puppet of Zionist interests
and was only elected in a phony process, unlike the freedom enjoyed in
Iran. The point is that Iran may have overplayed its
hand, throwing away a wonderful opportunity to fool the West and get
sanctions reduced while still building nuclear weapons.
At any rate, this is a big mess and it will not turn out well.
Speaking
of big messes, to consolidate the Obama Doctrine--allying or engaging
with Sunni Islamist extremists--the United States is now entering public
negotiations with the Taliban. The Afghan Taliban, you might remember,
was a partner in the September 11, 2001, attacks and has been
unrepentant. The
supposed price will be that the Taliban, which is killing Americans on a
daily basis in Afghanistan, may merely renounce al-Qaida. But since
al-Qaida doesn't exist any more in Afghanistan this is hardly
significant. Mere words from the no-doubt-trustworthy Taliban--or will
even an apology be required--will make up for the murder of around 3000
Americans. According to U.S. policy, there is a radical and moderate
wing of the Syrian rebels, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood regime, the
Turkish stealth Islamist regime, probably now the Iranian regime, and
several others as well no doubt.
The
Taliban has been calling the Afghan government an
American puppet and the Afghan government reacted to news of the talks
angrily, with a feeling of betrayal, and broke off its own talks with
the United States. Sound like a pattern? The U.S. government siding with
enemies and subverting historical allies?
Oh, and four American soldiers were killed by a Taliban attack the same day as these diplomatic developments happened.
Finally,
the new Iranian president has been declared a moderate by much of the
Western establishment. First, it is assumed he is a moderate. True, he
was the person out of desperation who was supported by the opposition
but he has a long record as a key national security official who does
not differ from the main political line. Second, he is powerless because
the supreme guide is in charge.
Imagine
a "Cold War" in which the United States would have taken the Communist
side and you get a picture of current U.S. policy.
Please be subscriber 31,556 (among more than 50,000 total readers). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
We’d love to have your support and work hard to earn it. See our new feature with 13 free books at http://www.gloria-center.org. Why not make a
tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal: click here.
By credit card: click here.
Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line and
send to: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY
10003.
--------------------
Barry
Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International
Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His next
book, Nazis, Islamists and the Making of the Modern Middle East,
written with Wolfgang G. Schwanitz, will be published by Yale University
Press in January 2014. His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, also published by Yale. Thirteen of his books can be read and downloaded for free at the website of the GLORIA Center including The Arab
States and the Palestine Conflict, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East and The Truth About Syria. His blog is Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.
Professor Barry Rubin, Director, Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloria-center.org
Forthcoming Book: Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East (Yale University
Press)
The Rubin Report blog http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
He is a featured columnist at PJM http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/.
Editor, Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal http://www.gloria-center.org
Editor Turkish Studies, http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ftur20#.UZs4pLUwdqU
No comments:
Post a Comment