Introduction

“Military option is not off the table”, “Military action against Syria”; “Surgical strikes against the government in Damascus”, “Teach the thug Dr. Bashar al-Assad a lesson”, “Limited strikes to deter a monster, the new Hitler, from using chemical weapons again”.

These are just part of the firm and menacing statements that have been coming out from Washington and others since the alleged attack with chemical weapons in al-Ghouta area, east of the Syrian capital Damascus on 21st August 2013. Necessary and urgent, they argue. Others, like Russia, oppose the move for various reasons, among which the lack of clear evidence, the unpredictability of such an action and perspectives of drawing the entire region into an extremely dangerous and unstable situation.

The situation now appears to have calmed down with the latest Russian initiative to put the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile under international control. However, the US was extremely close to launching a unilateral military action and has now made it very clear that they do not take the military option off the table.

I argue that such a move would be an inconceivable catastrophe.

I write the current article because I sense an alarming reality if the US is to ever launch unilateral strikes against Syria.

Writing my current piece, I remain aware that I am no deep expert in the internal issues of the countries in the region; nor do I claim to have THE answer to the Syrian crisis. All I share are my views which I have gathered throughout extensive and continuous research and by closely following events.

I believe that Syria matters to all of us right now, regardless of whether you are Syrian, Jordanian, Israeli, Turkish, American, British or any other nationality.

Structure

In the first part of my article, I shall outline the (recent) historical, political and strategic context of the crisis. In the second part I shall explain the consequences of any foreign intervention in view of the very same context.

I. HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT

How did it all begin?

In March 2011, in the time of the “Arab Spring”, protests broke out in various Syrian cities.

Why? Well, let us have a quick look at Syria right before the unrest began in March 2011.

No doubt, Syria could not have qualified in any way as a ‘democracy’ or a 'free’ country in the Western sense. It has virtually been a one-party (Syrian Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party at the forefront) state for more than 40 years. There should be no illusion: Syria would most certainly qualify in the description of a police state. For what I have researched, one could be in trouble for simply expressing opinion, or for open affinity to the “wrong” party/ideology, get fired or even arrested. The security apparatus was ubiquitous. Administration and bureaucracy is highly over-floated and corruption was and still is literally everywhere, at all levels.

There was no real elections, or constitution.. The President, Dr. Bashar al-Assad, was voted on a referendum, being the only candidate – with 97%. Well, hardly any competition or choice, one might argue.

And the list goes on… But what I want to underline here is:

Syria pre-2011 was by no means a paradise on earth in terms of politics, freedoms and rights, to say the least.

The need for reform was clear and, arguably, urgent.

Protests going violent

It is said that the first city to revolt was Dara'a, in the south, in mid-March 2011. Firstly, the protest was mostly peaceful. Varying reports claim that government forces opened random fire at unarmed protesters from the very first days1. The government has denied any such allegations and sustains that no fire was opened on peaceful protesters but only response to attacks from armed men. Where the truth lays I cannot say for certain, as I was not there personally and am bound to be unable to establish this with a certainty beyond any reasonable doubt. What is clear, though, is that there was social energy and need for a change. And it cannot be denied, those were and still are most legitimate calls.

However, the peaceful and reasonable calls for change could be said to have been immediately 'backed’ by violence and from the first days of the uprising, there have been armed men and casualties on both sides, which suggest a quick spillover from “peaceful protest” to armed activity on both sides from the very early stages.2

Syria’s complicated religious and ethnicity jigsaw

Not many countries are as ethnically and religiously diverse as Syria. It is home to approximately 10% Christians, 10% Kurds, some 10 to 15% Alawites (an offshoot of Shia Islam, the sect of Dr Bashar al-Assad), and a majority Sunni population. Further, there are also some sizable Druze, Jewish and Armenian minorities, among others.

In brief: governing and securing the complicated ethnic mosaic of Syria would not be an easy-peasy job for anyone.

One thing must be admitted about the ruling Arab Socialist Ba'ath party and President al-Assad: Syria is a secular state where everyone could freely exercise any religion. Prior to the war, I am being told by some good Syrian friends of mine, no one would have ever asked whether you were Sunni, Alawi, Christian, or whatever. One was Syrian. And there was a reasonable degree of stability, security and peace for any of the minorities.

Today in Syria there are hundreds, if not thousands, of different rebel armed factions, many of whom with extremist and Takfiri ideology. Such are Jabhat al-Nusra, an offshoot of Al-Quaeda, and the Islamic State for Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), with some commentators defining them as 'the most efficient forces fighting against Dr al-Assad’s government’. The Christians of Syria, for example, mostly support the government and is perhaps not because they are particular supporters of President al-Assad or his Party’s policies. It has a lot to do with a fear that a scenario in which extremists take over or chaos ensues, they will be in the gravest of dangers. Something not so unthinkable when they just look across the border and see what happened to the Christians of Iraq following the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 (an invasion in violation of international law and without a UN sanction, by the way).

To summarise: the reality is that if the Syrian government was to fall or was forced out by bombs, few could guarantee what would happen to the complicated ethnic jigsaw of the Syrian society.

The opposition

Like in any country, there is not a unitary, one single opposition against the current ruling government.

Nowhere could this be more true than Syria. Hundreds of groups fight on the ground, not to mention the political side (with its innate disagreements and infightings) – the Syrian National Council (SNC). The SNC is an organisation based in Turkey and run mostly by Syrian ex-pats, sponsored and supported by the West and some regional players.

Either way, it is the case that there is hardly anyone who could stand up and claim that he or she has a reasonable and sufficient command and control of the “opposition” armed groups on the ground. Not to mention the Jabhat al-Nusra and ISIS, who take no orders from anyone and are thought to be the strongest fighting force among rebel groups. In fact, the al-Nusra front recently executed one of the top commanders of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighting the government of the Syrian Arab Republic. Skirmishes between jihadists and FSA are not rare and the jihadists now openly oppose the more moderate elements.

This leads to the clear conclusion that, were the government of Syria to collapse, there is absolutely no guarantee that anyone could take the matters in control and form a stable government, let alone ensure the safety of all the sects and ethnic groups.

Demonisation of a single man

We hear it so so often: “Criminal”, “dictator”, Brutal dictator, “Assad is a criminal”, “Assad’s army”, “Assad's” this, Assad’s that… Looking from the outside, one might as well think that in Syria, everything is about Dr Bashar al-Assad. As in, he is everywhere and everything, in any second. He is all of it. Equating an entire country of 23 million people to one man. Syria = Dr Bashar al-Assad. An occurrence seen over and over again in almost every conflict, demonising and equalising to one man, e.g. “Saddam is a terrorist/dictator/tyrant/[etc.]”. And this is not to get the Syrian government off the hook. No, they certainly have a long list of crimes to account for.

But Syria is not Bashar al-Assad. The Syrian Army is not “Bashar al-Assad’s army”. No, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) belongs to the Syrian people. For anyone interested, it might be curious to know that the SAA corps are comprised  of all the ethnicities, layers and sects within the Syrian society.

Regional context

What happens in Syria is not at all about Syria only. The entire region is on the verge of a very big fire that could hardly be extinguished. Syria is, among other things, the battle ground of a nasty proxy war and major geo-political interests and considerations by many players. They all have their reasons.

Either way, it must be crystal clear that the Syrian crisis is not about Syria only. It is not even about Dr Bashar al-Assad. Not at all.

The Persian Gulf states

On one side, there are the Persian Gulf states (Qatar and Saudi Arabia mostly), who are among the most generous sponsors of funds and weapons to the rebels. This, of course, could hardly have anything to do with a push for democracy and human rights on their part, there is just something not genuine in such 'motives’, it is a joke-like idea. That is, Saudi Arabia, for instance, is a dark-age feudal theocratic autocracy, ruled by a ruthless monarch. No, such nation can definitely not claim to be supporting democracy and human rights, thus, we definitely cannot talk about it being a true reason for intervention. It has nothing to do with Dr Bashar al-Assad, nor with freedoms and rights.

These states fund and arm armed groups against the Syrian government for various reasons, inter alia, the close ties it has with Iran, the strongest Shia state in the region, (Saudi Arabia and Qatar are mostly Sunni). They want to see themselves as the honourable and deserving 'front-liners’ of Islam and leaders in the region. A defiant Iran (and Syria) in this context, is a thorn in the sight for the Persian Gulf states.

Further, there is a new gas pipeline project from Iran through Iraq and ending into Syria and the Mediterranean coast. This would be a huge competition for Qatar, for example, who has one of the largest gas reserves in the world and is looking for potential ways to bring it to the European markets. What is the shortest way for a potential pipeline? The answer lies in a quick check of the map.

There are further reasons, but my point is: as far as Saudi Arabia and Qatar are concerned, this is not about President al-Assad, nor is it about democracy and human rights. These states are following strictly personal agendas.

Iran

Iran is a key player in the current crisis. It has not many allies in the Arab world, and Syria is definitely its strongest one. For Iran, Syria is an absolutely rudimentary element in their support for Hezbollah, and in their opposition to Israel. Syria is at such a strategically important location (located on the Mediterranean, bordering Israel and Lebanon) that for Iran to lose such an ally would mean an end to the support (at least logistically) to Hezbollah and the Palestinian cause. It would also significantly diminish their leverage against Israel. The list goes on with other geo-strategic goals of Iran related to Syria.

Iran would surely do its absolute best to support the Syrian government.

Israel

For Israel, Syria has been a pain in the neck for quite a while. It is geographically too close to Israel itself (and Lebanon/Hezbollah), and it is 'uncomfortably’ allied to Israel’s biggest foes: Iran and Hezbollah. The current Syrian government is not under the (indirect) control of neither the Americans nor the Israelis, which makes it all the more difficult to effectively exert pressure. The way they choose to do it is by unilaterally conducting air strikes against the Syrian Army which the IDF has done on numerous occasions in the last 1 year.

On the other hand though, Israel is confronted with another danger: Dr Bashar al-Assad’s government could be called everything, but it is mostly predictable. As in, it is extremely unlikely that Syria would ever, in its right mind, attack Israel. Were the Syrian government to fall, Libyan-style chaos would most likely ensue, with strong extremist element and Al-Quaeda presence. This is a much more undesired state of affairs than the current one. Therefore, Israel is trapped in quite a complicated puzzle, and this explains why Israel has not been so adamant on the “Assad must step down” rhetoric.  

Turkey

Turkey has been an absolutely essential element in the entire Syrian crisis. It has contributed enormously to the war effort of the rebels. Turkey provides direct and indirect logistical and other support to endless amounts of rebels infiltrating from Turkey into Syria. The reason?

Well, not just one, but perhaps it could be summed up that Turkey likes to see itself as the growing power both in the Middle East as well as in the Balkans (and in fact, in many ex-Ottoman dominions). It also is a close ally of the US and a NATO member. Further, Islamist Prime minister of Turkey Erdogan likes to see himself as the new ruler of the Middle east, establish authority and “strength”. Dr Bashar al-Assad even qualified him as the new “Caliph”. Whether this is the case is arguable, but it certainly is the case that Turkey’s influence in the current crisis is absolutely crucial and essential.

Turkey also has a particularly sensitive topic: the Kurds. Dr Bashar al-Assad decided soon after outbreak of the insurgency to withdraw units of the Syrian Arab Army from most of the North-east Kurdish lands, effectively making them an autonomous region. They are a considerable force to be recognised. Matching this with the Iraqi autonomous region of Kurdistan, this poses a great threat to the Kurdish question of Turkey, just across the volatile borders of the region.

Erdogan has recently stated that he is “ready to enter Syria also by ground forces” and he was even amassing troops on the border. This is the bravest call from anyone so far involved, even the US loudly claiming: no boots on the ground. Surely, not all about altruism, human rights or democracy.

On a quick note, in my view Erdogan has somehow failed to observe the reality that what he is doing is to pour petrol onto the burning flames of his neighbour. Sooner or later the fire will definitely spread.

The West

The West, particularly the US and the UK, remain extremely close to their long-term ally and protégé in the region: Israel. It is Israel’s interest they would defend before all.

Further, it is also about the fact that exerting influence upon the Syrian government is virtually impossible, as in, it is not a puppet state. Pre-2011, Syria had virtually no national debt, and it was not a member of either the World Bank or the IMF. Adding to this its close ties with ever-inconvenient Iran, it is no wonder that the West would naturally dislike Dr Bashar al-Assad and would ideally like to see him out of the place. And this is not about the person, Bashar al-Assad, it is about the defiance of Syria as a state.

Further, it is about geo-strategic interests and dominance. If the West is to topple Dr Assad, or help to topple his government that is not under their control and install a marionette state, such as Libya or Kosovo, then its influence in the Middle East would grow significantly, having only one more country to 'take care’ for after Syria: Iran.

Russia

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world was turning into a sort of a hegemony lead by the West that “won the cold war”. Russia, on the other hand, was on the verge of economic, territorial and political collapse. In this context, it was not difficult for the US to become the world’s 'rightful and deserved’ policeman, as the 'winner of the Cold war, the better system’.

This has now effectively come to an end, particularly since Putin re-took power again in 2012, most visibly on the international arena. The Libyan fiasco of 2011 is to never be repeated again, Putin stated. Moreover, Syria is not just any country for Russia. The ties between the two states originate back in the 60s. Russia has been supplying Syria with various weaponry and equipment, the economic and cultural ties are too strong. There are thousands of Syrian-Russian families as well. Some have speculated that Russia’s support for Syria is only because of Russia’s naval base at the strategic port of Tartous, on the Syrian Mediterranean coast (a small facility, it is a reload/repair location, and could hardly be called a naval military stronghold). I argue the context is much broader, and ultimately, it has to do with Russia’s influence in the Middle East, but also very much to do with the wider international context. Russia’s stance on the international arena is at stake in Syria too. This is too much to allow for and just let go.

With Russia rising so strongly and opposing the USA (very much so in terms of law, concerning the UN Security Council resolution votes), it has become clear to the US that it could no longer so easily be the policemen of the world and act abroad at will, “because we can”.

Crucially, for Russia growing extremism in the region poses a direct threat to its national interests. Looking on the map again, the distance between Syria and the Caucasus is not very large at all, and a further problem is that there are reports of a large number of Chechens fighting jihad against the government of Syria. Surely, Russia’s eyes would be close on the activities of those individuals.

There seems to be a difficulty in appreciating the reality that the US is no more the single, most exceptional hegemonic power in the world. This has brought US/Russia stand-off to a new level, unseen since the Cold war.

II. “INTERVENTION IN SYRIA”: THE WAY TO HELL

I have now taken quite some time to outline some of the most significant players and factors that are playing an important role in the ongoing Syrian crisis. I deemed it as necessary for the purpose of being able to put the above words of aggression and military intervention into context and to effectively dissect them into what the actual implications today might be. Not just taking words or events out of their context, as nothing in the Syria’s terrible suffering is an isolated case.  

The casus belli: the chemical attack of 21stt August in al-Ghouta, Damascus countryside.

What we heard from all sides was that the 'monstrous and disgusting regime in Damascus has used chemical weapons against its own people. On those grounds, we are going to teach them a lesson and carry out strikes, as the world cannot stand by.’

Great, OK, fair enough! One crucial problem though: there is no irrefutable evidence.

We heard John Kerry and other US politicians using “reports”, “information from credible intelligence sources” and “we strongly believe”. The pure fact is, no one could show to us, the mortals, a single piece of undeniable evidence.

For the sake of probability, let us for a second imagine that the Syrian president, Dr Bashar al-Assad and “his army” did order the use of chemical weapons. Now, let’s also imagine that this was a court of law, where, of course, the presumption of innocence exists, and the guilt must be proven. The prosecutor states: “He or she is guilty of a heinous crime!” Then follows an accusation, trying and conviction. However, without a crucial part: an undeniable evidence, beyond any reasonable doubt. Is this really how it works? Can we convict without evidence? My answer is: this is unthinkable and simply illegal.

Furthermore, what exactly might the motive of Dr Bashar al-Assad be to use chemical weapons in his own capital where he lives himself, and, moreover, knowing that UN inspectors are 5-10km away? This would be utterly suicidal for him politically, militarily and, very likely – physically. It makes no sense at all. He is not silly or stupid, that is for sure.

Then, lacking clear evidence or motive, how on earth are we supposed to back and accept a military intervention based on “credible sources”? Are these sources just as credible as those of the Iraq invasion of 2003? Sorry, Mr Cameron, Mr Obama, but we have seen that film already. Not again.

Legality of a strike

In 1945 following the disastrous World War II, virtually all nations agreed upon the slogan: “never again”. They bid on the hope that, by creating the UN with its Charter, war would become unthinkable. Therefore, this beautiful document called the UN Charter, has very clearly provided for when force may be used.

• Self-defence (i.e. a State is attacked illegally by another State, then there is the right to respond with force);
• Through a sanction of the UN Security Council.

Statements have been made by the White House and top US officials, including Nobel Peace Prize Barack Hussain Obama, that they would not seek UN Security Council support for a strike on Syria. This has been the case even after the chemical weapons deal from September 2013 (under which Syria would cede its stockpiles under international control) with the US stating clearly that force is still in the list of options. Obama even said that, should the Congress approve military action, that would be enough. This is a treacherous and extremely dangerous challenge to the UN as an institution, and to the whole world order as we know it.

Should the US take positive steps towards a military strike, this would be a wholly defiance of the standing international order. This would set a dangerous trend and render the UN all but obsolete. This would mean we are going into a new international order, a new era, and it is not quite clear, how would it look like.

Opening Pandora’s box

It is probably not so difficult to order a Tomahawk cruise missile strike in the direction of Damascus. And then? What exactly is the final strategic purpose, the objective of such a strike(s)? We do not have motive/evidence, we do not have legality for such a strike. And the consequences may be dire for all.

The war rhetoric of top US officials after 21st August 2013 went too far. The US was seemingly too far to revert. Were it not for the rather unexpected and surprising for almost all chemical weapons deal initiated by President Vladimir Putin, it could as well have been the case that missiles and bombs would be (illegally) 'travelling’ to Damascus today. Luckily, this was reverted in an almost last hope / second move.

As for the US, instead of spending millions on a missile, they could surely find better use in terms of in aid for the dire, catastrophic humanitarian situation in Syria and its neighbours.

The last thing Syria needs right now is more blood. How could one stop a conflict with more weapons and escalation? Makes no sense.

Escalation

In case of strike, Syria would have the legitimacy and legal ground to respond with a counter-strike on the US and its regional bases. It is unthinkable to imagine what would happen if Iran and/or Israel was involved too. Then we would be engulfed in an open-ended conflict with unimaginable repercussions that would change the shape of the whole Middle East, if not the whole world.

Why this all matters to all of us?

I shall point three reasons, but there surely are many others:

1, Refugees and the humanitarian catastrophe

The number of Syrian refugees is growing as we speak, estimates put the internally displaced at 5 million, and those who were forced to flee outside of it at about 2 million. Most of these are in the neighbouring countries, posing an enormous social, political and financial burden on the surrounding countries. Some of those countries, such as Lebanon, have already a long list of problems to solve already and a very fragile socio-political orders.

The refugee crisis, however, does not stop with the surrounding countries. For example, in the last 1.5 months, in a small and poor country called Bulgaria, more than 1,000 Syrians crossed the border illegally. Bulgaria could neither provide for them in the short-run, nor offer any sustainable integration plan. And there are more and more destitute Syrians coming every day.

Escalating the conflict would deteriorate the humanitarian disaster and render it a true catastrophe.

2. Extremism

Very disturbing. There are reports that hundreds, if not thousands, of European nationals are 'fighting jihad’ against the secular government of Syria. What would these people do when they come home? They surely will not just sit home and calmly look after their gardens.

Further, who can guarantee that among the thousands of refugees that enter illegally there will not be any Al-Quaeda-linked elements? It only takes one for a suicide attack, God forbid.

3. Unpredictable consequences

No one could say what the consequences of escalation would be. There are many aspects: military, humanitarian, rise of extremism in the region, but also very much economic: the price of oil would likely surge, which would inevitably have a massive domino effect, affecting each and all of us. In essence, there would be dire consequences not just for the region, but across the entire world.

CONCLUSION

In this article, I have attempted to present why I believe anything but a political solution to the Syrian crisis would be more than disastrous. I have also tried to make it clear why I am absolutely convinced that the least likely solution would be any military intervention.

I also hope to have helped raise awareness of why the Syrian issue truly matters to all of us and that it should not be just a quick report on the news.

I sincerely hope for an internal political solution to this shockingly and painfully long and destructive conflict. I underline internal; Syrian issues must be left to the Syrian people to resolve. Not the US, not Russia, not Iran, not the Persian gulf states. Democracy is not a tool you install in a place with a bombing campaign or a military intervention. How the Syrians want to live in their country is entirely up to them, and this is a long and comprehensive internal process.

And I sincerely hope that the bloodbath would come to an end as soon as possible. There are no winners in this disgusting war, the biggest losers, however, certainly are the ordinary Syrian people and this is why the message of peace is so crucial, as opposed to escalation and warmongering.

And I hope that I have succeeded at conveying at least a small part of this message.

Sources:

1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC55uPBKYqU

2http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143026#.UWwdBasac5