President Barack Obama is on the warpath, with the US intent on bombing Syria and initiating a wider war any day now. Amidst this, one may be forgiven for feeling despondent and thinking that all is lost for Syria.
After all, the Western media is selling this war as a fait accompli, presenting it in such a way that it seems not only inevitable, but framing it so that it could logically be expanded to pursue regime change and eliminate the democratically elected government of Syria. Still, the war has not yet officially begun in its conventional sense, even though it has been raging in its covert form for over three years now.
This means that there is still time, no matter how limited, for Syria to be saved, should the proper events enter into motion. Aside from serendipitous events which are outside of Damascus’ control to influence, the most assertive action that Syria can take to stave off a full-fledged war would be to form an alternative anti-terrorism coalition under the aegis of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
Serendipitous Salvation
The US’ plans for ‘Leading from Behind’ in a forthcoming Syrian war (it will not unilaterally invade Syria and commit boots on the ground) are dependent on a few important situational and institutional variables. Of course, even if these all fail to follow the US’ expectations, it is not to say that an air war may not happen, but rather, that these serendipitous events would present the best opportunity to save Syria from a wider war involving regional ground forces and near-guaranteed regime change.
The Turkish Gambit
Turkey is playing ‘hard to get’ as regards the US’ formation of the Syrian regime change coalition (RCC). It says that it will only engage in “humanitarian aid” during the campaign, but this is likely not what it truly intends to do. It is behaving as a wolf in sheep’s clothing and coyly defying the US’ demands in order to procure as much added benefits for it as possible. Just as it was against the 2003 War in Iraq but quickly threw its support behind it after it began, so too is likely to act like this vis-à-vis Syria. The problem for the US this time around, however, is that it wants more than just staging rights for its impending war – it wants full Turkish participation on the ground to fill the vacuum left by ISIS and to reinforce the Free Syrian Army’s (FSA) expected gains.
Turkey is reluctant to do this for a few reasons, but for the right price and promises, it would gladly pursue its Neo-Ottoman fantasies in Syria regardless of the cost. The issue here is that its strategic gambit to procure as many US-supported concessions as possible may unintentionally backfire, with Washington losing patience (it needs Turkey onboard before, not after, the war starts) and possibly threatening Ankara with the Kurdish card to speed up its compliance. This could lead to a quick spiral of events where Erdogan finally realizes the extent of Washington’s geopolitical treachery and flat-out refuses to follow his orders for Syria. This would greatly impact the effectiveness of any US War in Syria and have far-reaching reverberations as well.
The Kurdish False Start
The US is supporting the formation of an independent Kurdistan in order to promote its geopolitical goals in the Mideast, but the success of this delicate process is principally dependent on timing. More than likely, the US wants to crown the Kurds with an independent state as a reward for assisting with regime change in both Iraq (already accomplished) and Syria (ongoing). It is vital that this occurs after the war is over in order to not scare the Turks and Iraqis away from diverting their attention and forces into Syria when they would be better suited near the borders of a geopolitically revisionist Kurdistan (one armed and trained by the US and NATO).
The Kurds are slated to have an upcoming independence referendum, but the date has yet to be announced. Nonetheless, if for whatever reason the conventional War in Syria is delayed and the Kurds have a false start in declaring independence prior to when they were supposed to (i.e. after the war), this would throw the US’ plans completely off balance. A security dilemma triangle could emerge between the Turks, the Kurds, and the Iraqis, and all sides may realize that it is better to hedge against one another than to expend their forces into Syria to fight America’s war.
Peripheral State Collapse
The final fortuitous event that could save Syria from a larger war would be the collapse of the Iraqi and/or Jordanian states. These states lie on the important Syrian periphery and are necessary for any major war against Damascus, especially if Turkey declines to be involved for whichever reason. Iraq is a house of cards just waiting to fall over, and it may take nothing more than internal Sunni-Shia rivalry and militia violence (if Kurdistan does not declare independence first) to collapse the state, preclude it from militarily chasing ISIS into Syria, and distract the RCC into intervening there instead.
Jordan is another state teetering on the edge of internal collapse, owing to its unstable domestic situation (economic, demographic), although more can be written about this forecast elsewhere. The importance here is that if Jordan collapse, the US and Israel have gone on record saying that they would certainly intervene there to support the regime. This, too, would buy some time for Damascus and could even create a larger geopolitical problem that the RCC feels more inclined to deal with than Syria. Both scenarios are not likely, but sometimes Black Swan events do occur and must never be fully discounted, especially in the dynamic and volatile Mideast.
The SCO Saves the Day?
Other than hoping that serendipitous events can prevent a major war, Syria can take matters into its own hands and make the strategic decision to invite the SCO to create an alternative anti-terrorism coalition against ISIS. After all, according to the SCO’s founding document, its members (Russia and China being the most prominent among them) are united in their struggle against terrorism, separatism, and extremism, thus placing the SCO in an uncomfortable and unlikely position to decline any Syrian appeal for assistance. This is even more so since Russia, which currently holds the presidency, already saved Syria from a US-led war drive one year ago through its surprising and witty diplomatic intervention. It is not envisioned that the SCO would commit its armed forces to protecting Syria or launching strikes against ISIS, but rather that their diplomatic, logistical, intelligence, and material support would conform to international law and greatly assist in Syria’s War on terrorism, separatism, and extremism. Their involvement in helping Syria would carry with it enormous and multifaceted benefits for all the parties involved:
Another Choice
Right now, the US is the only country that creates ‘either-or’ coalitions, which in this case, infers that those who do not join the RCC are supporters of terrorism and do not see anything wrong with ISIS. The world has never been presented with an alternative multilateral choice in dealing with a global issue since the end of the Cold War. By creating another international coalition, the world can finally be presented with a choice between the West and the Rest in addressing the same major issue, thereby eroding the West’s bullying tactics in expanding its RCC and working to ‘flip’ regional states that have already signed on to it. After all, what is ‘global democracy’ if there is only one choice?The Multipolar Model
This brings about the topic of multipolarity, which would be greatly promoted through the SCO’s assistance to Syria. What’s more, the clear and resolute support that the organization gives to Syria could be a positive influence in quickly motivating the rest of the BRICS countries and their regional allies in joining the alternative anti-terrorist coalition. This would provide an historic opportunity for the Rest to present a symbolic counterweight to the West and mark the official onset of multipolarity in international relations.
The Trial Run
The SCO has publicly proclaimed the need for it to intervene in some non-military extent to support Afghanistan after the NATO drawdown later this year. Both Afghanistan and Syria are facing near-identical threats, and since it is in the interests of the SCO to combat these transnational dangers in the former, the logic would follow that it would also serve them well to do so in the latter. Partaking in a similar support operation in Syria could be a trial run in providing the grouping with the necessary experience to better perfect their plans for Afghanistan.
Concluding Thoughts
Despite being ‘between a rock and a hard place’, all hope is not lost for saving Syria from a conventional all-out international war. Serendipitous events such as a miscalculation in Turkey’s gambit, a premature birth of Kurdish statehood, and the collapse of Iraq or Jordan could do much to divert the regime change coalition from attacking Syria with its full potential and overthrowing the democratically elected government. However, there is something that Syria can do right now to increase the chances of its survival, and that is calling upon the SCO to immediately assist it in as strong of a capacity as it can. Through the formation of legitimate anti-terrorist coalition to be a foil to the West’s regime change one, the SCO and its BRICS partners can present the rest of the world with a multipolar choice that has been lacking since the end of the Cold War, help Syria to the maximum of its non-military needs, and prepare for its oncoming mission in Afghanistan after the NATO drawdown. Such a revolutionary action may not end the covert war in Syria, but it could very well dissuade the West from launching a disastrous conventional one that would destroy the country once and for all.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the official position of Sputnik.
