Why hasn’t the United States Cleansed Syrian Swamp Yet?

What exactly the United States wants in Syria has been thought by many at many a time? And many more have questioned the exact motive of the United States in the protracted civil war in Syria. After the eruption of the anti-Assad revolt in 2011 the country got entrenched in an unrelenting civil war. More than 1,00,000 people are confirmed dead, millions including many women and children are fatally injured, and millions have taken refuge in neighbouring countries.

It was believed that after the chemical weapons attack on civilians in the rebel-held Damascus suburb of Ghouta on 21 August 2013 which killed hundreds of civilians including many children, the United States will finally be pushed to take punitive action against the government of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad. However, after weeks of bickering it seems that the US will now settle down with Russian mediated plan of seizure of Syrian chemical weapons, something also agreed by Al-Assad.

It is evidently apparent that the United States does not want Islamists to rule Damascus after the fall of Al-Assad. An overdriven Sunnite win in Syria will lead to the empowerment of an Islamist-led Sunnite government in Syria. However, it’s clear that after getting rid of the Muslim Brotherhood-led government in Egypt through a bloody coup, the US won’t allow the formation of another Islamist government in the biggest country of the Levant.

The United States is still not in a hurry to find quick solution to the crisis in Syria. Almost a year ago, President Obama warned that any use of chemical weapons by Syrian regime would cross a “red line”, hence raising the likelihood of US intervention. And Obama declared “red line” has already been trespassed by Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus. After analysing the whole conflict it is empirically clear that the United States would only opt for the solution of Syrian crisis that suits its hegemony and Israeli survivability in the post-Assad Syria.

Despite its so-called expressions of dismay and concern over what is happening in Syria, the Israelis would prefer Bashar Al-Assad or another “strongman”, as opposed to a “democratic” government in Damascus. With another “strongman” in power the Israelis know what to expect but with an Islamic leaning “democratic” government in Damascus the four-decade long imposed truce in Golan will definitely come into question.

The United States and Israel would do their best to nullify the Sunnite consolidation of power in Syria in particular and in the Levant in general. The Shiet-Sunnite division suits the broader western vision of the Middle East. The defense of Israel is the prime objective of the United States and other western states. Sunnite consolidation in Syria will lead its march first towards occupied Golan Heights and then to Lebanon, Jordan and finally to Jerusalem. The United States fears that United Sunnite Power will finally march towards Israel, ‘its spoiled child in the Middle East’. Syrian events would directly impact the outcome of the Iraqi state where Shiets have taken over power after US invasion.

Stalemate in Syria will further prolong the bloody civil war and will finally turn the already divided and dysfunctional state into a country of many militias based on different ideologies and sects. A post Al-Assad Syria without national military will turn out to be another Lebanon where Syrian air and land borders will be under the mercy of Israel like Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza.

After closely watching the unfolding of Arab awakening events in the Levant and Iraq, its reversal in Egypt and looming reversal in Tunisia with its tiding effect on the other regional countries and blocks, I personally reckon that the West in general and the United States in particular do not want to end the conflict in the Levant and in Iraq for the broader regional schematic.

The longevity and escalation of Syrian conflict has imploded the underbelly of the region when long under carpeted Shiet-Sunnite strife came out in open on the streets. The escalation of conflict will further divide the people of the region and will especially clench the countries with a significant Shiet and Sunnite population mix.

Post US invasion, Iraq is already gloomy with sectarian killings where local politicians have already divided the region on sectarian line. The Syrian conflict has escalated the political tensions further among ordinary people and divided the citizenry on sectarian leanings. Lebanon is another country which is feeling the brunt of Syrian conflict where Shiet Hezbollah came out into the open to fight with the Syrian regime and the Sunnites of Lebanon are backing the opponents of the Syrian regime.

The vision of anti Al-Assad regional countries differs from the US and Israeli vision of the region. The United States does not want stable and powerful countries and blocks in the region who can question its hegemony in the regional matters. Common anti-Iran stand among the anti-Assad forces does not necessarily bring them towards a unified Syrian approach. The only country with which the US has common interest on the regional issues is the state of Israel. Israel would want an aggravated regional conflict so that it can rein the region without forthcoming military threat to his hegemony in the said region.

If we go back and revisit the history pages of events in the Levant and Iraq, we find that the pre-eminence of the regional powers can only solve the problem of the said region. These lands were initially divided to suit the indirect western control of the region’s natural resources and later the inexorable, continued existence of the Israeli state.

Suffice it to say here that prolonged-unresolved Syrian civil war is in the best interest of the United States and Israel. The US would only intervene decisively when it gets sure about the favourable outcome of a post Al-Assad Syria. 

http://radianceweekly.in/portal/issue/muzaffarnagar-riots-bjps-grand-strategy-for-delhi-at-play/article/why-hasnt-the-united-states-cleansed-syrian-swamp-yet/