The United States and its few remaining warmongering allies are still calling for the use of a military option against Syria, despite massive international condemnation and the fact that a war could engulf the entire Middle East in a conflagration of chaos.
U.S. President Barack Obama, who was elected in 2008 using campaign slogans calling for peace, is now beating the drums of war and speaking about the need to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
So why is the United States so adamantly seeking a pretext to start a war at a time when it is experiencing economic hardship? Is the window for diplomacy on Syria closed? And if the U.S. starts such a risky war, will it be able to win it?
Russia and the allies of Damascus would certainly deliver a serious response if the U.S. attacks Syria. Russia may be militarily weaker than the U.S. in full-scale war capabilities, but it will continue the rivalry in the heartland countries in order to maintain its status as a global superpower. Russian strategists believe that the plan to attack Syria was devised after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and Washington is always ready to use its military might to counter any move which might alter the balance of power in the Middle East. Russian strategists also believe that if the United States is able to become the regional hegemon in the Middle East, it would be a big step toward its goal of gaining control of Eurasia and the global energy lifeline of the 21st century.
Historically, the U.S. government has always used war as a means to extricate the country from economic difficulties. Now that the unemployment rate is very high in the U.S. and European countries and the standard of living has dramatically declined, the Western powers are planning a war to open new markets for their military-industrial complexes in order to acquire the money required to get them out of the current economic crisis. And the oil-rich Arab states of the Persian Gulf are ready to spend billions of dollars to oust Assad.
However, an attack on Syria would be an entirely different kettle of fish because it would create a great threat to the security of Israel, which is the United States’ main proxy in the Middle East. Israel lacks the strategic depth necessary to deal with a serious escalation of the situation and would be extremely vulnerable to Syria’s medium-range missiles if Syria were to be attacked. And Syria is not the only existential threat to Israel since Hezbollah and Iran are ready to respond to Israel if their staunch ally is attacked.
The only winners of a war on Syria would be the extremists and terrorists, who have gained momentum over the past 30 months of conflict in Syria. The only outcome of such a military adventure would obviously be nothing but destruction, bloodshed, and a rise in poverty, like what the United States left behind in Afghanistan and Iraq after years of war.
Davud Ahmadzadeh is a political analyst and expert on the Middle East based in Tehran.
This article originally appeared in Persian on the website Khabaronline.ir.
Subscribe to our RSS feed to stay in touch and receive all of TT updates right in your feed reader