Nightmare scenario
Arguably the most significant event now occuring in the Middle East is the killing of hundreds of peaceful demonstrators by Government armed forces in Syria. This puts the lie to the claims by Pres. Bashar Assad that he has rescinded the hated 50 year old emergency regulations that allows him to rule without legal opposition. But, this situation is not yet ripe for international intervention.
The UN was triggered to intervene in Libya when the rebels had captured Benghazi (the second largest city in Libya) and Gaddafi's forces were on the outskirts and Gaddafi himself was threatening that they would enter every house and kill anyone who opposed them. Fearing a bloodbath in a large metropolitan area, the UN Security Council enacted resolution 1973 to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, and this was extended to preventing Gaddafi's forces from sending tanks into civilian areas. This has been further extended to the use of NATO air forces and US drones to attack Gaddai's forces outside Misratah (the third largest city in Libya) and anywhere else where the rebels are under siege and civilian lives are at stake.
Suppose a similar situation occurs in Syria. Suppose the rebels take over the city of Deraa, where most of the rioting has been, and suppose they drive out Assad's forces. But, then Assad sends his army in to "wipe out the opposition." Then, suppose the UN is once again motivated to pass a resolution to provide a military means to protect the civilians of Deraa. If this continues as it is doing in Libya, there will be a significant possibility of the West saying that Assad, like Gaddafi, must go. Then what will the Iranians do?
Iran has already sent advisors to help Assad to deal with the demonstrators, according to Pres. Obama, because of course it has a lot of experience in putting down civil unrest. There have been at least two major occasions, after the faked elections last year, and recently when Iranian civilians tried to demonstrate as the Egyptians did in Cairo. Syria is Iran's major ally, and the question is, can Iran maintain its strategy of threatening to take over the Arab Middle East by replacing the US, if it loses its major ally? The answer to this is of course "no". It would lose its conduit of arms and ammunition to its proxy Hizbollah in Lebanon and in fact its major means of threatening to attack Israel. Its strategy would be fatally disrupted.
So now, if there was western intervention in Syria, even based on a UN resolution, and if Iran regarded this as a causus belli, what would then happen? Would they send in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to assist Assad's forces, the Syrian Army and secret police (mukhabarat)? Remember that Iran and Syria do not share a common border, Iraq is in between (a distance of only 200-400 km). Now consider that the Iraqi Government is dominated by a Shi'ite Party and that they may agree to allow, overtly or covertly, the movement of Iranian forces across Iraq into Syria (this is occuring covertly anyway).
The entry of Iranian armed forces into Syria would be considered a threat to international peace by the Security Council, a basis for a resolution against Iran (although this might be opposed by Russia and China). Also, Israel would regard the movement of Iranian armed forces into Syria as a causus belli, a direct threat to its existence. Could Israel afford to wait until the Iranian armed forces were massed on its border? There is then the possibility of a direct armed conclict between Israel and Iran. This is a nightmare scenario, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Stranger things have happened.
The UN was triggered to intervene in Libya when the rebels had captured Benghazi (the second largest city in Libya) and Gaddafi's forces were on the outskirts and Gaddafi himself was threatening that they would enter every house and kill anyone who opposed them. Fearing a bloodbath in a large metropolitan area, the UN Security Council enacted resolution 1973 to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, and this was extended to preventing Gaddafi's forces from sending tanks into civilian areas. This has been further extended to the use of NATO air forces and US drones to attack Gaddai's forces outside Misratah (the third largest city in Libya) and anywhere else where the rebels are under siege and civilian lives are at stake.
Suppose a similar situation occurs in Syria. Suppose the rebels take over the city of Deraa, where most of the rioting has been, and suppose they drive out Assad's forces. But, then Assad sends his army in to "wipe out the opposition." Then, suppose the UN is once again motivated to pass a resolution to provide a military means to protect the civilians of Deraa. If this continues as it is doing in Libya, there will be a significant possibility of the West saying that Assad, like Gaddafi, must go. Then what will the Iranians do?
Iran has already sent advisors to help Assad to deal with the demonstrators, according to Pres. Obama, because of course it has a lot of experience in putting down civil unrest. There have been at least two major occasions, after the faked elections last year, and recently when Iranian civilians tried to demonstrate as the Egyptians did in Cairo. Syria is Iran's major ally, and the question is, can Iran maintain its strategy of threatening to take over the Arab Middle East by replacing the US, if it loses its major ally? The answer to this is of course "no". It would lose its conduit of arms and ammunition to its proxy Hizbollah in Lebanon and in fact its major means of threatening to attack Israel. Its strategy would be fatally disrupted.
So now, if there was western intervention in Syria, even based on a UN resolution, and if Iran regarded this as a causus belli, what would then happen? Would they send in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to assist Assad's forces, the Syrian Army and secret police (mukhabarat)? Remember that Iran and Syria do not share a common border, Iraq is in between (a distance of only 200-400 km). Now consider that the Iraqi Government is dominated by a Shi'ite Party and that they may agree to allow, overtly or covertly, the movement of Iranian forces across Iraq into Syria (this is occuring covertly anyway).
The entry of Iranian armed forces into Syria would be considered a threat to international peace by the Security Council, a basis for a resolution against Iran (although this might be opposed by Russia and China). Also, Israel would regard the movement of Iranian armed forces into Syria as a causus belli, a direct threat to its existence. Could Israel afford to wait until the Iranian armed forces were massed on its border? There is then the possibility of a direct armed conclict between Israel and Iran. This is a nightmare scenario, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Stranger things have happened.
posted by Jack Cohen at 3:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home