By John Ubaldi
Contributor, In Homeland Security
National security advisers have sent to President Barack Obama a recommendation to place U.S. military forces closer to the front lines in both Iraq and Syria. Many attribute this new change in policy to a growing dissatisfaction with the progress against ISIS and the Pentagon’s strategy of wanting to expand military involvement.
The recommendation by the Pentagon would likely begin placing Special Operation forces on the ground inside Syria, and embedding U.S. advisers with Iraqi and Kurdish forces closer to the firefights in Iraq. All of this comes at a time when Secretary of Defense Ash Carter has been pressing the Pentagon for additional options of expanded use of the military in the three battleground countries of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan.
With the expanded options being requested, this would significantly escalate the U.S. role in both Iraq and Syria. Whatever option is chosen must gain the approval of President Obama, who has been extremely reluctant in expanding U.S. military operations in the region.
In September 2014, in a short address to troops at the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, President Obama stated, “This is not, and will not, be America’s fight alone. One of the things we’ve learned over this last decade is America can make a decisive difference. But I want to be clear: the American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission.”
Continuing in his remarks, “As your commander in chief, I will not commit you and the rest of our armed forces to fighting another ground war in Iraq. After a decade of massive ground deployments, it is more effective to use our unique capabilities in support of partners on the ground so they can secure their own countries’ futures. And that is the only solution that will succeed over the long term.”
Obama has long resisted restarting another ground war, especially after pulling out all combat forces from Iraq in 2011. The president has realized that the situation in both Iraq and Syria has stalemated, so he is looking for a new approach.
Military commanders and the president’s own national security strategists have formulated various options and sent them to the president for his approval, and one of the more controversial proposals would be a no-fly zone. This option doesn’t have the backing of any of the president’s top national security officials as this would require sending in thousands of additional U.S. military forces and would complicate matters with Russia who are conducting military operations inside Syria.
It’s interesting to note that Democratic presidential candidate and presumed nominee Hillary Clinton favors a no-fly zone in Syria.
The strategic calculus has changed since the “Arab Spring” revolution in 2011, which precipitated the Syria civil war; the U.S. now has only a few options. We can re-debate the failure to act in 2011, but this will only leave us right back where we are today.
Either way, the president has a tough choice to make, once everything settles in Syria, as to who will be left in charge. How this plays out over time could result in the Islamic State controlling Syria, with Damascus as its capital. Maybe, the al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda group operating inside Syria, would gain the upper hand and look to establish an Islamic State in the country. The final option is keeping President Assad in power.
This last option has changed and gotten more complicated the past few weeks, but looks like the preferred option; unfortunately not by the U.S., but by other power brokers in the region.
Secretary of State John Kerry announced in a closed session of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that he hoped for a political settlement in Syria during an upcoming meeting in Vienna on Oct. 30.
“I think they believe that the role Russia and Iran are playing right now can create an opportunity for a diplomatic solution,” panel chairman Bob Corker, (R-Tenn.), told reporters after the briefing. “It’s somewhat difficult to look at the facts on the ground relative to what Russia and Iran are doing and see that congruently leading to a place where all parties can agree.”
On Wednesday, Iran agreed to attend the meeting with Russia, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, but Syria’s western backed opposition questioned the motives of this meeting.
The invitation to Iran over Syria strengthened President Assad, as he now views with Russian intervention things are moving strongly in his direction.
The Guardian reported, Iran’s formal position is that it backs a political solution to the crisis, but unlike Russia it has never signed up to the idea that it could end with a “Syrian-led political transition” that would almost certainly exclude Assad. That ambiguously formulated idea lies at the heart of the Geneva conference communique of June 2012 – the basis for all international efforts to find a way out of the impasse.
“In any political process the role played by Bashar al-Assad will be important,” Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Hossein Amir Abdollahian, told the Guardian in an interview last week.
“We are not working for Assad to stay in power forever as president, but we are very cognizant of his role in the fight against terrorism and the national unity of that country. The people of Syria will make the final decision and whatever decision they take, we will endorse.”
In the same article Ian Black commented, “The invitation to Tehran will dismay Saudi Arabia and other countries that fear—but also exaggerate—its growing influence in Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Bahrain, as well as Syria. Riyadh firmly blocked previous UN-led efforts to bring Iran into the talks. The fact that King Salman has apparently given way reflects U.S. determination, Saudi weakness and international desperation about Syria.”
Every nation has different strategic interests in the conflict, but many Sunni countries have always feared expanded Iranian influence, with Mahan Abedin writing in Middle East Eye, “Meanwhile, lacking Russia’s diplomatic reach, Iran is mostly focused on the battle on the ground, not only to shore up the position of the embattled Syrian government but equally importantly to protect its Lebanese ally Hezbollah from the fallout from the conflict. Unlike Russia, Iran cannot afford to see elements of the armed Syrian opposition gain even minimal influence in Damascus as part of a final peace settlement.”
Edward P. Djerejian in a CFR interview stated, “At the UN, President Obama called for a ‘managed transition,’ [in which] an international coalition with the United States, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and Europeans would attack ISIS. There’s an opportunity here because ISIS poses a major threat to every single regime in the Middle East, including Iran.”
As the president decides what military option he will choose he also has to consider and understand each nation attending the meeting in Vienna has different strategic interests in the Syrian conflict and are seeking different outcomes.
The one constant of each of the nations who are attending the meeting is the disengagement from the region by the United States. Because of this, it has brought Russia in as a power broker in the Middle East for the first time in decades and allowed Tehran to expand its hegemony throughout the region.
Comments are closed.