Washington Exploits Events in Syria to Perpetuate Global Hegemony

Anyone following the United States’ conduct in the present crisis in Syria will get the strong impression that the perpetuation of its role as sole global power depends on military intervention in support of the so-called opposition. In this scenario, this position goes far beyond what they did in Libya alongside their NATO allies. When they got involved in Libya, the decision wasn’t supported by the conviction they formed toward intervention in Syria. In other words, Washington considers Syria to be different and more dangerous to its place in the world: either hegemony over Syria and continuing hegemony over the Middle East and the rest of the world, or the opportunity is lost and Syria resumes its well-known role in the resistance against America’s Zionist agenda and Israeli expansionism. There is no third position.

Risk Assessment

In regard to this kind of risk assessment, writer Jackson Diehl described Obama’s position toward the Syrian problem in a Washington Post op-ed, saying that it’s in a state of confusion because the coming presidential campaign requires calm and that Obama avoid starting a war in the Middle East. His inconsistency is also due to the fact that the United States is facing Iran, and not Syria alone.

It isn’t long before the writer reaches the truth: “It turns out that the steps that might achieve success in one theater only complicate Western strategy in the other.” He clarifies this point when he asks, “But if the United States gets involved in a military operation in Syria, would it still be feasible to carry out an air attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities? What if Israel were to launch one while a Syria operation was still ongoing?” He gives the clear answer that this would lead to chaos and would cause matters to get out of control.

There’s no doubt that Israel focuses on Iran before everything else, but this focus conflicts with ongoing diplomatic negotiations on the nuclear issue. It also narrows Obama’s range of choices in Syria, as any deal with Iran requires Russia’s support.

Another important factor, in the words of a writer who supports Obama’s policies in the region, is that he has completely lost credibility since Russia — according to American sources — has already begun to give military support to Syria. This was confirmed by Pioneer Press when they quoted the largest weapons manufacturer in Russia on June 16, writing that his company “was shipping advanced defensive missile systems to Syria that could be used to shoot down airplanes or sink ships if the United States or other Western nations try to intervene to halt the country's spiral of violence.” The company’s director continued, “Whoever is planning an attack should think about this.”

It’s clear that this regional position is transforming into an international confrontation, and the question here is as follows: Is the United States prepared to face Russia’s armed forces in support of Israel, especially given that Russia has begun to consider Syria a matter of importance, and that the Iranian issue concerns them as well as Iran?

Many political and military analysts see signs that the transition of this Middle Eastern crisis from the political realm to the military represents a dangerous development, describing it as the most serious crisis between two great global military powers since the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s.

Misconceptions

The United States still sees itself as the sole hegemonic power in the world and believes this hegemony must continue, ignoring all others. At the same time, Washington tends to explain Russia’s positions according to American values when calculating its interests. The U.S. often thinks that Russia is concerned with having a port on the Mediterranean, and that its concern for Syria maintains this outward appearance, or to be more exact, to gain this port. However, the facts show that Russia’s interest in the region is wider and greater than this by far, perhaps no less in breadth and depth than America’s strategic, economic and political interests. This isn’t unusual — Russia is a great nation, and it has a right to have interests in various regions. On the other hand, Russia has not and will not exploit others and their resources or dominate their sovereign decisions, as America has done to countries around the world, but rather wants to heal relations between the nations of the world, and restore balance between them. Russia especially wants there to be other ascendant powers to share these approaches, such as China and others.

American and Israeli Interests

In any case, America’s concern for Israel’s interests will only increase, as more than one American writer has asserted, such that the United States will hesitate to follow Israel’s wishes to attack Iran out of fear for Iran’s response to this kind of attack and the heavy damage that could be done to America’s military presence in the region.

It’s worth mentioning that the United States has done Israel a great service by continuing its policies of maintaining distance between Egypt and Iran, the two largest regional powers. This is achieved through the application of non-public pressure, including ongoing communication between Washington and Cairo, or more precisely the Supreme Council of Armed Forces (visits to Egypt by American military leaders weren’t cut off after the ouster of Hosni Mubarak.) This led to a burst of communication and even coordination between the two countries — that is, Egypt and Iran — which alarmed Israel, and then Washington. The United States will definitely continue to apply various types of pressure on Egypt to ensure it remains distant from Iran, in the interests of Israel and of many ruling elites in the Gulf, especially in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates.