The civil war in Syria is far more than just a conflict between a group of rebels and their government. It is a broader ideological battle in which many parties are involved. When the protesters in three Arab countries toppled their respective governments in just one year, Syrian opposition, who were oppressed by their government too, were inspired to follow suit. Yet the Syrian regime has been obdurate to defeat, and the reason has to do with the fact that there are many other factors being played out in the backstage.
The Syrian conflict presents a theme reminiscent of the Cold War, yet with a religious flavor. One indispensable piece of background information in understanding this “cold war” is to know that there are two major sects of Islam: Shiite and Sunni. These sects have been fiercely grappling with each other over political power for years. Bashar Al-Assad, the Syrian regime leader, is an Alawite, which is an offshoot of Shiite Islam. The rebel groups, on the other hand, all belong to Sunni Islam. Take a wild guess who would support Assad’s regime against the Sunni rebels. It has got to be a Shiite power that supports an Alawite regime. I here introduce: Iran.
The last thing Iran wants is to see the region’s only other Shiite-led regime, namely the Syrian regime, collapse and be supplanted by Sunni-dominated rebels. The Sunni rebel groups, on the other end, are unsurprisingly backed up by most of the other Sunni Persian Gulf countries, mainly Qatar and Saudi Arabia. These countries by contrast would be happy to see Shiite-led governance diminish in the region. Another intricacy is due to be unraveled here.
Iran is already unpopular with the influential West. The Syrian regime too has recently fallen out favor with most of the world. Together, they constitute presumably the most hated dual political power known today. What they need now is a strong, influential “alpha male” who can provide protection that could square with the international condemnation they face. This alpha male is the second strongest army in the world, Russia. But what’s in it for Russia? The tie between Russia and the Syrian regime is, shall we say, a “friends with benefits” relationship. Russia is as militarily ambitious as the U.S. itself. In order for this ambition to be fulfilled, Russia seeks to have military bases outside of its territory. This is exactly what Syria offers to Russia in exchange for its protection. Suffice it to say that the only Russian military base outside the former Soviet Union is hosted by Syria, in the city and port of Tartous in which Russia has its only naval infrastructure installed. If the Syrian regime were to be overthrown and replaced by a West-friendly government, Russia’s base in Syria would be in trouble. In addition, Russia is profiting from the Syrian civil war. In 2011 alone it exported $1 billion worth of arms to Syrian regime.
Clearly Russia has direct interests in Syria. More vague is why China has taken the same line as Russia. You can, however, draw some conclusions based on some circumstantial evidence in China’s international politicking and trading. First, China is a non-interventionist; it is known for keeping a low profile, and following other countries’ leads, especially when it comes to conflicts as was the case during the Arab Spring. As far as Syria is concerned, China is following the lead of Russia. It may be theorized that China feels closer to Russia who shares a close geographical proximity; a kindred governance structure, economic system, and, more generally, a worldview. Second, it is possible that China is afraid of the Syrian uprising catching fire in China. Among many others, Christopher Johnson, a former CIA analyst, is attributing China’s support for the Syrian regime to its fear of the popular influence of the Arab Spring. In other words, it may be in the best interest of the Chinese government to stall any efforts taken to overthrow the Assad Regime. Third is a simple point: the trading volume between China and the Syrian regime is huge. Based on all that, it is no wonder that both China and Russia used their veto power to block the U.N. Security Council’s resolution that threatened sanctions against the Syrian regime unless it halts its atrocities against the Syrian civilians.
Where does the United States come into play? You may think that it is an easy decision for the U.S. to intervene by aligning herself with the Syrian rebels. After all, all of the countries on the other side are U.S. rivals: Iran, Russia and China. Then it makes strong sense for the U.S. to intervene, right? Not quite. People collaborate and come to each other’s aid in times of crisis. For the Syrian people, this is a time of crisis. So the “rebels” are comprised of people from all different walks of life; there are Muslims, Christians, liberals, conservatives, men, women, rich, poor and unfortunately, extreme radicals, who ambitiously aspire for sovereignty over the region after the current government has been dismantled. These radical groups are affiliated with Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. As different as their ideologies are, both of them have one thing in common — lust for control. So by funding and arming the rebels, the U.S, believe it or not, is supporting its very enemy.
So if helping the rebels is risky for the U.S., why not just leave the whole conflict alone? Again, I can only theorize here. The U.S. has another risk lying in the non-intervention path. If the Syrian regime, backed by Iran, wins the war, that is bad news for Israel, the U.S.’s strongest ally in the region. Ironically, if the rebels win, and the “wrong” people come to power, that is also bad news for Israel. So the U.S. would rather be on top of a potential risk (intervention), and try to dodge it, than be completely distanced from another (non-intervention), and then have to deal with the consequences later.
The reason given by the Obama administration for intervening in the conflict is that Syria “crossed the red line” by using chemical weapons against civilians, and therefore intervention has become a must. This reason frankly makes me very skeptical, and it should do you too. Before the Syrian regime used chemical weapons, they had already killed 90,000 innocent civilians. The argument put forth by the Obama administration suggests that the “red line” is the method of murder, rather than the act of murder itself, let alone the number of people murdered! That is why I find this argument facile.
The other aspect to point out is the timing of the U.S.’s actual decision to arm the rebels. It is amidst a line of scandals that the U.S. government has to face. A movie like Wag the Dog reveals how a government deflects public attention from a domestic issue by shifting people’s focus to an international crisis. This may be the case here.
The bottom line: The Syrian civil war is just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath it, there cold war between the major Eastern and Western powers. This cold war could be the safe haven for terrorism to grow. As for the U.S.’s intervention, it frankly remains nebulous and unconvincing.
Ahmed Seif is an English graduate student from Alexandria, Egypt.
