Direct Intervention in Syria 'May Not Serve America's National Interests'

Washington needs to develop a clear strategy in Syria and answer the question of what its national interests in the Syrian war are, US-based journalist Antoun Issa notes, throwing into question the "necessity" of the US' direct military involvement in Syria.

The next US administration should determine what America's interests in the Syrian civil war are, Antoun Issa, a US-based Lebanese-Australian journalist, notes.

"The calls for US military action against Syrian government forces have become more vociferous in recent weeks… The question advocates of US military action need to ask and answer is: how is it in America's national interest to go to war against the Syrian government, and risk direct confrontation with a great power such as Russia?" Issa points out in his recent article for The National Interest.

Meanwhile, it still remains unclear what exactly the US interests in the Syrian conflict are, he remarks.

Issa notes that the Syrian war does not pose a threat to the US, nor does it take place in a country "of great strategic value" to Washington. However, the spread of terrorism in the region remains Washington's primary concern.

On the other hand, according to Issa, Russia's Syrian operation has posed "a direct challenge to America's leadership in managing global security and maintaining a monopoly on the use of force" for the first time since the end of the Cold War.

"Should the United States allow Russia to dictate the outcome of the Syrian conflict, and expose American weakness, it could encourage a repeat in behavior elsewhere," Issa underscores, adding that "in terms of global security and great power relations, Syria should absolutely matter to Washington."

"But neither of these interests-confronting terrorism or containing Russia-necessarily equates to greater US military involvement, or war with the Assad regime," the journalist highlights.

While experts throw into question the US' direct intervention in Syria, there is still a possibility that Washington could use various opposition forces including Islamists against Assad's Syrian Arab Army, according to Grigory Tishchenko, Deputy Director of the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies (RISS).

In his Thursday interview with Svobodnaya Pressa Tishenko assumed that the US' "corridor" for terrorists fleeing Mosul may pose a substantial threat to the Syrian government forces.

On Thursday, an unnamed source in military and diplomatic circles in Moscow told RIA Novosti that Washington and Riyadh plan to allow more than 9,000 Daesh insurgents leave Mosul and move to eastern Syria to carry out large-scale offensive on Deir ez-Zor and Palmyra among other things.

"This is about the redeployment of nearly ten thousands of armed insurgents, and they are really well-armed. If they kick off the assault in the direction of Deir ez-Zor and Palmyra, the situation would seriously deteriorate for Assad," Tishchenko told Svobodnaya Pressa.

He explained that the crux of the matter is that Russia would be forced to beef up its military presence in Syria, in the event of Daesh's offensive. However, it would mean Russia's further involvement in Middle Eastern affairs.

For his part, Stanislav Tarasov, head of the Middle East Caucasus think-tank, deems that Russia should avoid getting bogged down in the Syrian conflict and seek to establish closer ties with Turkey and Iran.

Tarasov pointed out that it seems embarrassing that more than 60 states, involved in the Syrian war, cannot defeat Daesh, which comprises about 18-20 thousand fighters. In reality, it is hardly surprising given Washington's double-standard approach toward the Syrian conflict, he stressed.

According to Tarasov, both the US-led coalition and the Russia-Iran-Iraq coalition should determine and clearly articulate their aims in Syria. The expert believes that by dotting the i's and crossing the t's Washington and Moscow and other geopolitical players concerned would facilitate the Syrian peace process.