Iraq, Syria: The West Is a War Late
Published in Le Temps
(Switzerland) on 4 June 2015
by Luis Lema (link to original)
(Switzerland) on 4 June 2015
by Luis Lema (link to original)
Translated from
by Senegal N. Carty.
Edited by Emily France.
The United States and their European allies still see two distinct battlefields, where Iran and Saudi Arabia are already engaged in one and the same regional war.
The formula is a bit trivial, but it is fully applicable to the new reality in the Middle East: in Iraq and Syria today, the United States and their European friends are “a war late.” There is, without a doubt, no longer any good solution with which to confront this erupting volcano. But it is necessary to dare to face it, at least; to try and avoid the guilt of causing a spate of new explosions.
The meeting of the coalition of states formed to oppose Islamic extremism, which was held in Paris on Tuesday in an atmosphere of almost general indifference, demonstrated this to all. The “strategy” led by the United States, behind which their allies hobble into line, is no strategy at all.
Yet on paper, this strategy purports to be almost crystalline. In Iraq, it’s about fighting the Islamic State group, through all possible means. In Syria, on the contrary, a diplomatic solution is (once again) being implemented, even a tacit collaboration with Bashar al-Assad’s regime. In the end, without saying it openly, the United States is counting on the Iranians for the conclusion of this “second war”: They are the ones who, when the day comes – that is to say after the conclusion of an agreement on nuclear energy scheduled for the end of June – will facilitate the Syrian president’s departure.
The problem is that the “Westerners” are the only ones who see the situation in this way – France, to tell the truth, does not hold this view, but no one is listening to them anymore. From now on, everyone, except Washington, sees the unrest in this region as a single war. This is clearly true for the Islamic State group, which created its self-proclaimed “caliphate” straddling Syria and Iraq, and asks nothing of other places but to extend its presence. It is also true for America’s Arab allies, with Saudi Arabia at the helm, which, it thinks, has nothing less than its own survival at stake in the overall fight.
Finally, it is true for Iran, who, if it carries out its threats (and why wouldn’t it?), could throw tens of thousands more men into this battle.
Iran, as seen from the Sunni side, will soon rule over Iraq as well as Syria. Saudi Arabia, as seen from the Shiite side, has only to carry out inefficient bombings on the coalition of Islamic State troops; its real enemy is Iran. The Syrian regime has practically become a negligible entity in this battle of titans that may well last an entire generation.
The formula is a bit trivial, but it is fully applicable to the new reality in the Middle East: in Iraq and Syria today, the United States and their European friends are “a war late.” There is, without a doubt, no longer any good solution with which to confront this erupting volcano. But it is necessary to dare to face it, at least; to try and avoid the guilt of causing a spate of new explosions.
The meeting of the coalition of states formed to oppose Islamic extremism, which was held in Paris on Tuesday in an atmosphere of almost general indifference, demonstrated this to all. The “strategy” led by the United States, behind which their allies hobble into line, is no strategy at all.
Yet on paper, this strategy purports to be almost crystalline. In Iraq, it’s about fighting the Islamic State group, through all possible means. In Syria, on the contrary, a diplomatic solution is (once again) being implemented, even a tacit collaboration with Bashar al-Assad’s regime. In the end, without saying it openly, the United States is counting on the Iranians for the conclusion of this “second war”: They are the ones who, when the day comes – that is to say after the conclusion of an agreement on nuclear energy scheduled for the end of June – will facilitate the Syrian president’s departure.
The problem is that the “Westerners” are the only ones who see the situation in this way – France, to tell the truth, does not hold this view, but no one is listening to them anymore. From now on, everyone, except Washington, sees the unrest in this region as a single war. This is clearly true for the Islamic State group, which created its self-proclaimed “caliphate” straddling Syria and Iraq, and asks nothing of other places but to extend its presence. It is also true for America’s Arab allies, with Saudi Arabia at the helm, which, it thinks, has nothing less than its own survival at stake in the overall fight.
Finally, it is true for Iran, who, if it carries out its threats (and why wouldn’t it?), could throw tens of thousands more men into this battle.
Iran, as seen from the Sunni side, will soon rule over Iraq as well as Syria. Saudi Arabia, as seen from the Shiite side, has only to carry out inefficient bombings on the coalition of Islamic State troops; its real enemy is Iran. The Syrian regime has practically become a negligible entity in this battle of titans that may well last an entire generation.