The Middle East’s Arab Spring has been responsible for regime change in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen and Libya. At President Obama’s urging, NATO took a central role in the ouster of Muammar Ghaddafi in Libya with the initial stated purpose of protecting the civilian population. The objective quickly changed to oust the dictator Ghaddafi. By 22 August 2011, NATO had flown 19,877 flight missions over Libya, including 7,505 strike sorties (http://bit.ly/zwfdKi).
Will NATO now intervene in Syria? Syria is a completely different situation than Libya. There is a real possibility if NATO were to intervene, the conflict will spiral out of control. First, the conflict in Syria is becoming a regional conflict. The rebels have found a safe haven in Turkey, out of reach of the brutal crackdown from Assad’s regime. The Free Syrian Army, the main armed opposition to Assad’s regime, is based in Turkey’s southern Hatay Province. They are reportedly conducting armed forays into Syria from Turkish soil and engaging the Syrian army (http://bit.ly/uWTKyS).
Some deserters from the Syrian Army have also found sanctuary in northern Lebanon. These are the Martyrs of Telkalah Brigade. They are named after the Syrian village Telkalah from which they fled after it was stormed by Syrian security forces. These troops are in contact with the Free Syrian Army in Turkey to coordinate activities (http://bit.ly/wya7Ou).
Turkey has not ruled out intervention in Syria. The conditions they have set include a large flow of refugees from Syria into Turkey and massacres of Syrian civilians by the Assad regime. There are over 10,000 Syrian refugees in Turkey and over 5000 civilians killed by Assad’s regime (http://bit.ly/iig15n). Only Turkey knows what the eventual threshold for intervention is.
According to Turkish Foreign Ministry officials, they may be willing to create a “buffer zone” inside Syria from which the rebellion can find sanctuary (http://bit.ly/uWTKyS). The rebels are confident that if Turkey were to establish such a safe zone, refugees would swell the ranks of the armed opposition to sweep Assad from power. But, it is unlikely that the Syrian regime will sit idly by while Turkish troops invade Syria to protect the rebels.
Secondly, Turkey is a member of NATO. If Turkish troops go into Syria, it carries the mutual defense obligations of NATO into Syria with them. If Syrian troops do contest the Turkish incursion, will the West feel obligated to come to its aid through the Atlantic Treaty?
NATO itself is discussing intervention in Syria. According to NATOSource, the online daily news of the alliance has raised the question “NATO in Libya: Is Syria next?” (http://bit.ly/uAUBXU). Their answer is a tentative “not yet”. But while their analysis acknowledges the difference between Libya and Syria, it does not take into account the possibility of Turkey acting unilaterally, and the possibility of the ensuing conflict with Syrian forces, obligating NATO to act.
Lastly, the wild card in the region is Iran. Iran has long standing military, political and economic ties with Syria and is Assad’s strongest supporter. Given the current tensions between Iran and the West over Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, what will Iran’s reaction be to any foreign military intervention in Syria?
That is no small concern. Just this week it was announced that the United States cancelled planned war games with Israel to avoid further escalating tensions with Iran (http://on.msnbc.com/AibUgK).
What’s the answer? Turkey has outlived its welcome in NATO. Turkey was brought into NATO so the western powers would control the straits into the Black Sea to prohibit the Soviet fleet from reaching the Mediterranean. That purpose is no longer viable. Turkey’s Islamist government, its anti-Israel stance and the possibility of its conflict with its neighbor and dragging us in with them all lead to its losing its membership in the alliance. Also, we need to pressure them to not militarily intervene in Syria.
The United States needs to stand strong with Israel. We should have conducted the postponed war games demonstrating our commitment to defend our strongest ally in the region and as a show of strength to deter aggression by Syria or any other nation. This will have helped to contain any ensuing regional conflict.
The United States need to continue to promote strong international sanctions against both Syria and Iran. We can pressure Syria’s largest trading partner, Iraq, to seal its border with Syria to prevent aid from Iran from reaching the Assad regime. Also, we need to challenge Iran in the Persian Gulf and in the Straits of Hormuz.
Regime change in Syria is in the best interest of the Syrian people and for peace in the region. Assad’s ouster will be a major blow to Iran. Limiting Iranian influence in the region is also in the best interest of the region and the world. But, we need to apply some foresight and think of the second and third order affects to strategically shape the outcome, unlike what occurred in Egypt and Libya.
Comments