Escalation is still on the table
March 31, 2017
With Russia backing the Syrian army the U.S. and the
rest of the Sunni Axis seem to have given up their plans for a full regime
change in Syria. This does not, however, mean that the danger of an escalation
has passed. Plan B among U.S. foreign policy hawks has always provided for two
backdoor paths to war: the establishment of no-fly zones (now renamed as
“safe-zones”), and the partition of
Syria along
sectarian lines.
Trump has signaled that he supports the establishment of
“safe-zones” in Syria to manage refugees before they reach Europe. However in
practice it is unclear how this would be any different from Clinton’s proposal
to establish no-fly zones; a policy that Trump at one point warned could
spark World War III.
“What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be
focusing on Syria,” Trump told The Guardian. “You’re going to end up in World
War III over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton.” He continued: “You’re not
fighting Syria anymore, you’re fighting Syria, Russia, and Iran, all right?
Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to
other countries that talk.”
Safe-zones would be toothless without control of
airspace, so either Trump hasn’t thought this through, or is assuming that
renaming the venture will be enough to put anti-war activists off the scent.
Foreign policy analysts, however, are viewing this as potential flashpoint.
“I do think that it presents escalation risks,”
Melissa Dalton, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies who was formerly a country director for Syria at the Department of
Defense, told Business
Insider. “If
the US decides to pursue a safe zone, it needs to do so in the broader
framework that looks at what sort of levers, what sort of coercive measures can
the US bring to bear on Russia, Assad, and Iran to ensure that the safe zone is
not violated and to mitigate the risks of military confrontation.”
Russia has expressed concern, but is keeping their
response diplomatic, warning the U.S. to “think about the potential
consequences of establishing safe zones”
THE SIEGE OF RAQQA
As the U.S. military and Kurdish forces surround Raqqa
in preparation to take the city, most media attention has focused on the
possibility of its dam being destroyed by ISIS. However a far more important
development passed under the radar. On March 23, Radio
FreeEurope reported that
the U.S. intends to use the operation to block Syrian government forces.
Besides recapturing the dam, SDF said the U.S.-backed
operation also aimed to block any advance by Syrian government forces from the
west.
The implication here is that the U.S. doesn’t intend
to give Raqqa back to Syria at all, but would rather hand over power to one of
their proxies and facilitate the establishment of a new government. If this is
indeed the case, it would be naive to assume that this new government would
limit its territory to this one city. In order to hold its position over the
long term, they would have to extend their borders significantly, most likely
towards Turkey. Turkey clearly sees this implication, and is not
pleased. Turkey obviously
isn’t concerned about violating Syria’s sovereignty, but they view any move
that strengthens the Kurds as a potential threat.
RUSSIA’S STRATEGY
At this stage it is clear that Trump’s anti-war
campaign rhetoric will have little bearing on policy. Russia sees this, and you
can rest assured that they are planning accordingly, but as of yet they have
declined to expose their hand. Their lack of an immediate response does however
indicate that they intend to allow the U.S. to commit itself fully before
making any significant move. Once the U.S. is holding Raqqa this will cease to
be a war of airstrikes, and proxy insurgencies, and will become an occupation, and
that’s a completely different ball of wax.
This is comparable to an amateur chess player pushing
a cluster of pieces deep into enemy territory early in the game with no real
long term plan. Russia will bide its time.
Have something to add? Voice your opinion in the
Facebook post below.
No comments:
Post a Comment