On June 18, 2017, prominent U.K. newspaper the Guardian asked an important question: “Has Trump opened the door to conflict with Iran?”
According to Foreign Policy, a pair of top White House officials are
pushing to broaden the war in Syria against Iranian-backed troops who are
currently posing a major threat to the American military’s goals in the region.
FP explains:
“Ezra
Cohen-Watnick, the senior director for intelligence on the National Security
Council, and Derek Harvey, the NSC’s top Middle East advisor, want the United
States to start going on the offensive in southern Syria, where, in recent
weeks, the U.S. military has taken a handful of defensive actions against
Iranian-backed forces fighting in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.”
Thankfully, FP’s sources state that even the most traditional
Iran hawks are nervous about such a plan, including Defense Secretary James
“Mad Dog” Mattis. FP reports:
“Despite
the more aggressive stance pushed by some White House officials, Mattis,
military commanders, and top U.S. diplomats all oppose opening up a broader
front against Iran and its proxies in southeastern Syria, viewing it as a risky
move that could draw the United States into a dangerous confrontation with
Iran, defense officials said. Such a clash could trigger retaliation against
U.S. troops deployed in Iraq and Syria, where Tehran has armed thousands of
Shiite militia fighters and deployed hundreds of Revolutionary Guard officers.”
Iran hawks
fear that if the U.S. does not take control in the aftermath following ISIS’
downfall, Iran will emerge the dominant victor in Syria’s six-year-long war.
This is ironic considering the whole purpose of launching a foreign-backed
insurgency against the Assad government was to undermine and
contain Iran in the first place.
Once
again, America’s foreign policy strategy has backfired and merely strengthened
Iran’s presence in the region. War hawks in the U.S. only have themselves to blame for
this dilemma considering they overthrew an anti-Iranian president in Iraq,
Saddam Hussein, and replaced him with a Shia-led
government that quickly aligned itself with Tehran.
However, as catastrophic as a potential war with Iran would be,
there is a majorly overlooked elephant sitting on the battlefield that no one
is talking about: the Russian military.
As Newsweek explained last
week, both the Russian and American militaries are now battling ISIS in Raqqa —
“but not as allies.” The fact that Russia is taking credit for an airstrike that
reportedly may have killed ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Raqqa is a
testament to the fact that both Russia and America’s armed forces are
bombarding the same area. However, the fact remains that they are not working
in tandem – far from it.
The
Russian air force is bolstering the Syrian Arab Army (S.A.A.). According to a
recent statement from the S.A.A., the U.S. military reportedly just shot down a Syrian
government warplane in Raqqa, which is a flagrant act of war. In response to
this violation of Syria’s sovereignty, Russia has released a statement of its own, warning the
U.S.-led coalition it will now treat coalition warplanes as targets. Russia has
also suspended the
supposed “hotline” between Russia and the United States which was set up to
avoid these types of scenarios.
Russia
also recently confirmed that the U.S. had, indeed,
deployed a long-range rocket launcher to the Al-Tanf base in Syria — a region
where no ISIS fighters are present. Rather, that area is filled with
Iranian-backed militia fighting under the banner of the S.A.A.
It needs to be further emphasized that ISIS’ last stand in Syria
will pit the United States’ air force directly against Russia’s. This is not
something that can simply be de-escalated through the use of a hotline because
the U.S. and Russia have polar opposite interests in the country, and ISIS’
defeat is edging ever closer. Once ISIS is defeated, the two rivals will seek
to influence who retakes control of the liberated areas.
Despite
the ongoing massacre taking place in
Raqqa right now as ISIS fighters flee the city, it is becoming increasingly
clear that ISIS’ last stand will
not take place in Raqqa but in a vitally strategic area called Deir ez-Zor,
which is also home to an isolated Syrian government outpost.
As
the Washington Times notes:
“Military
commanders in Damascus, Tehran and Moscow are setting
their sights on the Syrian city of Deir el-Zour and the surrounding Middle
Euphrates River Valley as the battleground for the fight against the jihadi
group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
“Coalition
commanders and Pentagon officials say the overall battle plan will address the
Islamic State buildup in Deir el-Zour. But with all eyes fixed on Raqqa, it
remains to be seen how Syrian-led operations, backed by Russia, will affect
that long-term strategy.”
But here
is the potentially devastating news no one is talking about: Russia is already
bombing the areas around Deir ez-Zor in full preparation for this battle. According to
the Independent, Russia just claimed it killed around 180 ISIS militants and two prominent
commanders, Abu Omar al-Belijiki and Abu Yassin al-Masri, very close to
ISIS’ stronghold in Deir ez-Zor.
Why would
Russia expend so much time, effort, money, and personnel – in the face of non-stop American-imposed
sanctions – to prop up Syria’s president only for Vladimir
Putin to sit back and watch as American-backed forces fight to retake vital
Syrian cities?
The idea
is inconceivable. Russia, Iran, and Syria have made too many important gains
over the past two years to sit back and allow the U.S. to claim the victory
against ISIS. In Iraq, anIranian-backed militia was
crucial in defeating ISIS’ major strongholds. In Syria, the Syrian government
and its allies have been the most heavily engaged entity fighting
ISIS in the past year.
Further,
at least according to Russia’s state-funded RT, Iran launched a mid-range ballistic missile
attack on a position in Deir ez-Zor over the weekend, as well.
As allies
of the Syrian government, Russia and Iran’s campaigns have an air of
legitimacy. Iran is bound to Syria by a mutual defense treaty, which was formed
as far back as 2005. The Syrian government requested Russian military assistance in
2015. This is no different than NATO members coming to the aid of a besieged
NATO member, as required by
the NATO Treaty (or NATO countries ganging up together on a
smaller country that possesses a relatively weak military).
Conversely, the U.S. and its allies have no legal basis to
operate militarily within Syrian territory. History will be forced to remember
this ongoing crisis this way. When it comes to a discussion on how Russia and
the U.S. could have avoided their respective air forces colliding with each
other in the Syrian desert, the country that had no legal justification to be
there (and shot down Syrian government jets) will ultimately be responsible.
Remember
this as we edge closer and closer to a global confrontation: it is all
occurring as part of a geopolitical chess game that has nothing
to do with preserving our rights, freedoms, safety, or security.
