America Facing a Bitter Choice

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

Many are those who say that the Arab rulers are men of grand words, bigger than the mouths that utter them, who have spoken at length of the victories they will achieve on the battlefield, only to turn and flee the moment the first shots of confrontation ring out. They are faltering, cowardly rulers, never once prepared to meet the enemy, and the Arabs’ wars prove this to be a fact beyond dispute or debate. Arab leaders have roared with resounding speeches, and the Arab man has found from them nothing but more humiliation, defeat, and backwardness across every field of life.

Those who expect the Syrian regime to be easily defeated before the Americans add that this regime has not fired a single bullet toward Israel in decades, that all its talk of liberating the Golan was never more than worthless media ranting, and that the weakness of the Syrian army and its unreadiness for confrontation were confirmed once the Syrian uprising broke into military confrontation against the regime. The Arabs have their example in the regime of Saddam Hussein, whose army collapsed so easily before the Americans.

This is true.

What Is New in the Syrian Situation

The Syrian situation now is different from the situation in Iraq at the time of the American invasion, and I summarize this difference as follows:

The late President Saddam Hussein enjoyed no support, domestic or foreign, and no one cared much what American attacks befell him. Russia had not yet begun its resurgence, Iran was not pleased to have that regime in existence, and his own people were not prepared to provide popular protection. Syria is different in that the regime receives clear, strong support at both the military and diplomatic levels from Russia — Russian officials have said the Syrian regime possesses enough weapons to defend itself, meaning Russia has supplied the regime with advanced defensive arms. This does not mean Russia will enter a war against the United States, but the Russian message to the Americans is clear: Russia no longer accepts American arrogance, and it is prepared to cut it down to size. The Russians reinforce this message with a number of steps, such as tightened surveillance of the region’s airspace and outer space to track American and Israeli movements, as well as strengthening the Russian fleet in the eastern Mediterranean.

There is unlimited Iranian support for Syria across various levels — logistical, diplomatic, military, and intelligence — along with an Iranian mobilization of various military sectors in the Gulf region, ready to take part in the confrontation according to political directives. It is clear that the political leadership ties Iran’s standing and role in the region to its capacity for confrontation, not to political speeches. Iran understands perfectly well that its standing and role hinge on proving its military presence and technical capabilities, and that this presence must be tested if the Arab states allied with America are to be convinced that the security of the region is the business of the region’s own people, not America’s business. Iran has spoken of military development over the years and continues to carry out naval maneuvers, but it did not prove its presence until 2006, through Hezbollah’s confrontation with the Israeli assault. Hezbollah succeeded in that confrontation, but that was not enough to convince the Gulf states, Jordan, and the Lebanese March 14 forces that the balance of power in the region had shifted. This is why Iran has a strong interest in supporting a Syrian confrontation with the United States, and in taking part in that confrontation if necessary.

Hezbollah has been poised since 2009 for a new battle against Israel, eager to wage a contest it believes will change the political face of the Arab region. It is likely that Hezbollah is the greatest danger to Israel, the most ready for confrontation, and the most seasoned and security-conscious. My own conviction is that Hezbollah will not hesitate to carry out certain military actions to draw America into the potential war.

The Syrian army itself has changed a great deal in recent years. It began its transformation into a modern army several years ago, and it has been gaining experience through the tragedy now befalling Syria. The Syrian army has come out of its barracks, has largely shed its idleness, and has acquired many varied tactical capabilities. But the battle will not be soldier against soldier unless it comes to engagement with Israel — something Hezbollah could well undertake.

Rocket-armed military positions belonging to Hezbollah exist inside Syria, and they will not stay quiet if America carries out a military strike. It is not known whether Iran retains some rocket positions there as well.

Target Sites

There are many Syrian target sites, and America is expected to destroy them, possessing as it does the immense capability to do so. But America’s problem is that it is itself likely to be struck, given how spread out its positions are across the region. This can be summarized as follows:

America has military bases scattered across the Arab-Islamic region, and they are easy to target with missiles. It has bases in Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Afghanistan.

America has fleets roaming the Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Gulf, the Arabian Sea, and the Indian Ocean, all within range of missiles that could be launched from land or sea.

Israel is the biggest problem among the target sites, because any response by Syria, Iran, and Hezbollah aimed at Israel could draw Israel into the war — meaning an expansion of the scope and entanglement in a regional war that America is not seeking. Expanding the war could drag Arab states into fighting alongside Israel, which would carry internal Arab repercussions of its own.

The Global Economy

The global economic situation is very fragile, and the Western industrial world is barely managing to climb out of the financial and economic crises, so what will it do if the oil market is shaken? The price of a barrel of oil rises and falls simply on the media’s circulation of news of a possible crisis — so how would things stand if a real crisis occurred? And how would matters develop if missiles filled the skies, and oil tankers, refineries, and oil complexes came under fire? The meaning is that the global economy will suffer a powerful blow, and nations will place the blame on America for its aggression against Syria.

The Arab Street

We have grown accustomed to modest Arab demonstrations against American assaults on Arabs, and we have not grown accustomed to their having any great effect. Will the Arab masses play an effective role this time, given the continuing momentum of the Arab uprising that began in late 2010? Perhaps. An effective role would mean attacks on the embassies of Western states, their cultural and consular centers, and their economic interests.

The Arab peoples will not stand with America, and support for America will remain confined to its agents in the region and those loyal to them — who do not make up 10% of Arabs. The overwhelming majority of people will side with Syria, even if some of them are against the regime. Many are those who view the American attack as aggression against Syria rather than support for the Syrian people, and they are not prepared to endorse foreign military intervention against an Arab state.

What matters is that the Arab public’s reaction will depend to a great degree on the Syrian response and that of Syria’s allies. The Arab street will catch fire if a response occurs, and will retreat to lick the bitterness of defeat if no response occurs. And the Arab street’s reaction will be proportionate to the scale and seriousness of the response.

A Collective Decision

The decision to respond to a potential American attack does not rest with the Syrian regime alone; rather, it is a collective decision shared by Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah. Russia is concerned to tell America that it is no longer the sole and only pole in the world, but that Russia too is a pole to be reckoned with. Iran wants to pull the region out from under American hegemony, to have a say in shaping the region’s policy and moving forward toward modernization on the region’s own terms rather than the American way, and Hezbollah is concerned with registering a victory over Israel to change the political face of the region, at least in Greater Syria.

The bet that the Syrian regime will simply say it will respond to the potential missile strikes “at the time and place of its choosing” is a losing bet this time. America may ask Russia — and there is a possibility it already has — to agree on striking marginal, empty targets in exchange for no response, but this too is subject to a collective decision. If that were agreed to, and I do not think it will be, then Syria and its allies would have won the contest. The meaning is that the decision to respond to the American strike is collective, and my assessment is that a decision to respond, without hesitation, has already been made.

The American Way Out

The American president has an important way out before him, and that is Congress’s refusal to authorize the air strike. It is true that the president has the authority to order a strike, but democratic norms will give him a rope to climb out of a predicament whose extent and depth no one can gauge. So if Congress — whether the House or the Senate — votes against the strike, the president will be able to hold to the position of respecting the will of the people’s representatives.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “أمريكا أمام خيار مرّ” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.