More Russia in Syria
Hamid Bayati a few days ago asked some questions about Syria for publication by the Iranian Mehr News Agency in Farsi and in the Tehran Times in English. This was before the Russian strikes. I answered:
Q: According to recent developments it seems new era begins in Syria to bring peace to this country and Iran and Russia leading the efforts to kick out terrorist groups from Syria, how do you evaluate this issue?
A: From my perspective, the problem is more complicated than kicking terrorist groups out of Syria. The key question is what comes next. Most analysts here think Bashar al Assad will not be able to reestablish his authority over areas that have been in rebellion. If this is correct, political transition and countering terrorism have to proceed at the same time. President Rouhani’s notion that the terrorists can be defeated and only then will it be possible to talk about political reform is unrealistic.
Q: Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that any attempts to overthrow the government in Syria could lead to a failed state like Iraq or Libya, what is your idea about this view?
A: It could, but it needn’t. A negotiated political transition could provide the legitimate authority required to avoid a failed state. If a political solution does not happen, Syria will continue fragmenting into a patchwork of areas of control, with Kurds along much of the northern border with Turkey, relatively moderate insurgents in the south, extremists in the center and east, and the regime in Damascus and the west.
Q: In recent weeks we saw different news about Russia and China military activity in Syria, how do you evaluate this issue?
A: Chinese deployment is still a matter of speculation. Russia has already deployed
I doubt a couple of thousand Russians will be more effective than a similar number of Americans or Europeans. Russian air attack capabilities are significantly less accurate and effective than those of NATO countries. Collateral damage and the political backlash are likely to be greater.
The Russians can also expect to be targeted by suicide bombers, improvised explosive devices and other terrorist weapons. My guess is that Moscow has put itself on a slippery slope to much greater involvement in Syria, which cash-strapped President Putin can ill afford.
Q: Some experts say US agrees with Russia’s new approach in Syria? Is it true? If true what reasons led to West agree with Russia on Syria?
A: Washington unquestionably agrees that the Islamic State must be defeated, but the Americans are unlikely to align themselves openly with Russia in Syria, if only to avoid alienating the majority Sunni population there. US forces are not attacking Bashar al Assad’s forces, but Washington sees no solution in Syria without a commitment that he leave power. Moscow and Washington do however have to deconflict their military operations, to avoid any unintentional clash.
Q: What do you think about Iran, Russia, Iraq and Syria agreement on cooperation against Islamic State?
A: I think Iraq should get help from wherever useful help can be gotten. I doubt they will get much from Moscow, but that is for Baghdad to decide.
Russia will have to be cautious about appearing to align itself with Shia forces against Sunnis. President Putin is quite rightly concerned about Chechnyan and other Russian extremists. He should be expecting them to strike back not only in Latakia but also inside Russia. The notion that he can kill them all abroad and thereby prevent attacks at home echoes a line used by George W. Bush when the US invaded Iraq. It wasn’t true then and it is not true now.
In general, I don’t think enhanced Russian involvement in Syria and Iraq will make much difference to the course of the war there. Moscow deployed its troops because the Assad regime had weakened to the point that extremists were threatening western Syria, which is the heartland of the Alawite community and also hosts the Russian naval base at Tartous. The relatively modest deployment may block the insurgent advances, but it is unlikely to change the military balance much beyond that.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
2 thoughts on “More Russia in Syria”
Comments are closed.
RSS - Posts
Notwithstanding the frustration and anger at Putin’s latest outrage, I would imagine that it has given grim satisfaction to those realists at the State Department who are focusing on the long game. After all, whatever respect and influence that Russia immediately achieves in Shi’a/Alawite circles — or among Europe’s xenophobic fringe — will be outweighed by the alienation of many world European and other world leaders who have heretofore found excuses to ignore Putin’s aggressive behavior. Maybe our flacid friends in the EU and the Sunni Arab world will move one step closer to addressing the consequences of Russian support for Assad (most notably in the immigration crisis) by contributing to a coalition expeditionary force to take/hold ISIS-controlled areas for the moderate opposition.
What the heck does this mean?:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that any attempts to overthrow the government in Syria could lead to a failed state like Iraq or Libya, what is your idea about this view?”
What? Iraq and moreover Libya are failed states compared to Syria? What if Gaddafi was left unchecked to do what Assad is doing for years now creating Radicals. There would be Islamic State of Syria, Iraq and North Africa by now. The problem in Iraq originated by the Assad’s actions in Syria. Let us not forget this all began by peaceful protestors asking to share power via elections. Assad would for sure lose the elections taking into the account that around 75% of the population would vote against him. His loyalty was supposed to be to his country and not Russia’s geo strategic interests. Assad could not win the elections at the time if he was to accept the proposal, let alone now even if the other were to accept him as a candidate. He is more of a candidate for a war criminal tribunal. 75% of the people were are against him. Those odds now are even higher taking into the account that most of other ethnicities and religious groups except for Alawis have left Syria. More people in Syria is displaced than in its place of its origin, whether within or without the country. That is homogenization that can only lead to division with Assad in place. Even to somehow spin all of this on ISIS, which is necessary if some action is to be taken against ISIS. As for Russia and Syria my take is. You broke it you own it. Atrocities of ISIS do not come even close to those of Assad. Which brings me to the beginning. How is that that Syria is not already a failed state. Russian (Assad’s) strategy in Syria created problems for Iraq and the rest of the region by creating Radicals. If Radicals can evolve and be contained by the very nature of having a structure and regular population (women, children, old people) to organize, lead, take care for, I, for a quite some time, entertain the idea that that is better than having them all around. As for the democracy on MEA, it will have to wait some other spring, that is surely to come. It is a law of physics that all of the nature has to obey.