The Syrian Conflict & Geopolitical Changes

The shifting alliances and the overlapping of multiple ethnic, religious, geopolitical and social conflicts that characterize the civil war in Syria seem to defy the basic premise of any war— the distinction between “friend or foe”. On the one side is the regime of Bashar al-Assad, supported by Russia, Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shiite militias in Iraq while on the other side are the “rebels”: a collection of dozens of groups who most often compete with each other for territorial control. However, it is hard to deny the truth that Syria has become a chessboard of world’s superpowers who manouvre to pursue their geopolitical interests. But, that comes only at the cost of thousands of innocent Syrians. 

The Syrian conflict, or, depending on one’s point of view, civil war, is now in its seventh year. The conflict did not start by chance. Although the Western narrative claims that it’s a revolt by the Syrian people against President Assad in the wake of the “Arab Spring,” the fact is that Syria was targeted for regime change much before that. Although the “Arab Spring” toppled government after government, from Tunisia to Yemen, pundits were sceptical when it came to the prospects of a successful uprising in Syria. Bashar al-Assad, president since 2000, commands the best equipped and most disciplined army in the region, and its loyalty to the president is enhanced by the fact that the officers’ corps is dominated by the Alawites. That goes some way to explain the army’s successes during past six years of civil war. Equipped with modern Russian arms and heavily supported by the Russians since autumn 2015, the troops remain a force to be reckoned with, despite incurring 60,000 fatalities since the start of the war. In addition, Syrian officers are well known for leading from the front, which is guaranteed to boost morale in any army anywhere in the world. Thus, at least six generals have already lost their lives, among them the heads of special forces and military intelligence.

Though it is far too early for any historical categorization, we can, however, identify symptoms of a systemic crisis that led to the present state of affairs. However, before proceeding further, it is necessary to recognise certain hard realities of contemporary international politics.

First, the US-UK-Israel nexus, which wields enormous power in the present global system, often dictates terms to large sections of the international community, including the European Union, individually and collectively. The top one percent of the population of this group, which takes all the crucial decisions, has been called “Anglo-Zionist” (AZ) by some analysts. A vast majority of the populaces of these countries are misled by the AZ- controlled “mainstream media”.

Second, NATO is the sword arm of the AZ, and is used for achieving its foreign policy objectives including “regime changes” in the countries they want to influence. It is also used to keep all NATO members in line; they have to mostly follow its dictates, whether they like it or not. NATO is also increasingly being used for “out of area” operations, in addition to targeting Russia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are some recent examples.

Third, Israel controls the US foreign, defence and security policies to an astonishing degree. This is done through highly placed members of the Jewish diaspora in the US in all critical areas – government, finance, industry, academia, media, think tanks, etc. – as well as through lobbies such as AIPAC. Many such individuals give priority to Israel’s interests over those of the US.

Fourth, the AZ, along with NATO, embodies the “deep state” of the Western world. It acquired real power after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, which gave rise to America’s “unipolar moment.” This continued for almost 15 years, till Russia under Putin regained some of its lost strength. During this period, the AZ did whatever it wished, unchecked by any power or institution; the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia and the 2003 invasion of Iraq took place during this period.

Now coming back to the current situation, it is an irrefutable fact that the major players in Syria are Israel, the US, UK, France, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Russia, and Iran. And, all of them have their own agendas.

The primary impulse for regime change in Syria comes from Israel, which wants fragmentation of the country and annexation of the Golan Heights, and also other areas, if possible. That would also cut off the supply of Iranian weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, which Israel views as a threat. Israel’s policies are influenced by the “Oded Yinon Plan for Greater Israel” which aims to reconfigure Israel’s geopolitical environment by balkanization of the large Arab states surrounding it into smaller and weaker states.

Israel has been playing a crucial role in Syria but behind the scenes. The US-UK-French trio’s policy to destabilise Syria and overthrow Assad is driven by Israel and the neocons, as was the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. According to a UN report, Israel is providing medical treatment to injured fighters of the ISIS, Nusra Front, and other Jihadi groups in Syria and, possibly, also weapons. Israel clearly prefers them to the secular Assad regime, which continues to enjoy substantial support amongst all sections of the Syrian population including the Sunnis and the minorities.

Turkey and Qatar turned against Assad when he refused their proposal in 2009 to build a gas pipeline that would have crossed Syria and Turkey to Europe. Instead, he concluded a deal with Iran to supply gas to Europe. Turkey also has territorial ambitions in Syria. It is the conduit for providing logistic support, fighters and weapons to the anti-Assad groups in Syria.

Saudi Arabia views Assad as an Iranian proxy with close links to the Hezbollah, which it had declared a “terrorist” outfit. The Saudis are obsessed with a purported threat from Iran, which they would try to reduce by regime change in Damascus. Both the Saudis and the Qataris have financed and supplied arms to Jihadi groups in Syria on a vast scale.

Russia has close military and political ties with Syria going back to the Soviet era when it acquired a naval facility in Tartus, its only base in the Mediterranean. Thousands of Russian nationals are married to Syrians, also a legacy of the Soviet era. Russia intervened militarily in Syria at the request of Assad in September 2015, when he faced the prospect of an imminent collapse. Russian intervention was aimed at protecting its interests in Syria and reasserting its role as a major international power, after having been duped by the West in Libya in 2011. Its intervention reversed the military equation in favour of Assad, though there is currently a stalemate on the ground.

Iran has been providing weapons and troops to Assad as a long-time Shia ally, which has facilitated the supply of Iranian weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon. Thousands of Hezbollah fighters have also been fighting alongside the Syrian army in the country. Iran knows that it has been an Israeli target for years, and will be the next in line if Assad falls.

One unexpected consequence of the Syrian imbroglio has been the massive exodus of refugees to Europe — more than a million in 2015 alone — which has caused a serious crisis in the continent. Suddenly, immigration has become a critical issue in European countries, which do not know how to deal with it. The New York Times wrote on June 25:

“Refugees have poured out of Syria and Iraq…it is the flow of people into the European Union that has had the greatest geopolitical impact, and helped to precipitate the British vote [on “Brexit”]…it was the onset of more than a million refugees marching through Greece and the Balkans toward Germany that may ultimately prove to be the most destabilising event in Europe’s recent history.”

This, in brief, is the geopolitics of the Syrian conflict, a complex interplay of the motives and agendas of the various players. The AZ, neocons and their allies will not give up on their goal of regime change and might escalate the military campaign against Assad in the future. It remains to be seen if the Russians, Syrians and Iranians can resist that and prevent Syria from being balkanized.

“Foreign Actors in the Syrian Conflict”

The Arab Spring’s initial pro-Western stand was but a thin veneer, largely limited to urban middle class youths. It did not take long for a clearly Islamic identity to come to the fore in efforts to confront these secular regimes, and it went on to fuel the uprising.

Developments in the Syrian theatre coincided with both the US retreat from the region under Barack Obama and Russia’s return there. The conflict confirmed the complete political impotence of the European, former colonial powers, Great Britain and France.

The Syrian civil war triggered the return of Turkey, initially hesitant about taking on this new role, as a regional player, re-igniting the ages-old rivalry between Turkey and Iran. The Turkish political elite have realized in the past couple of years, much like their Russian counterparts, that their country’s destiny is only partially bound to that of Europe.

Iran continues its expansion policies with respect to the Shiite sphere of influence, Turkey faces a more complex challenge. From Ankara’s point of view, the most disturbing factors are the Kurdish political organizations. Regardless of temporary thaws in the past, the PKK in Turkey, the YPG in the north of Syria, and the Peshmerga in Iraqi Kurdistan, are viewed by Turkey as terror threats. The fact that Barack Obama relied heavily on the Kurds in Iraq and Syria to fight “Islamic state” (IS) deeply troubled Turkey.