Preventing the US Air Strike of Syria Should Be the First Priority; Undermining America Second

The United States claimed it has evidence of the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons against its civilians; Secretary of State John Kerry publicly condemned the Assad government’s “moral obscenity.” Such an accusation was widely recognized as a signal that NATO members such as the United States and Britain will launch airstrikes at Syria soon. The political situation in the Middle East has reached a point where new wars might break out: One of the most audacious analyses even predicts that an air strike is likely to take place within a week.

Even though the so-called evidence that the Americans held against Assad is not recognized by the United Nations, which also had the record of using made-up evidence to launch the Iraq war, yet if it is determined to bypass the United Nations to launch the strikes; nobody can stop this superpower. But such airstrikes resemble acts of a cowardly bully, in which the bombs dropped on Syria lack any political power and they might well be the most reluctant post-Cold War air strikes launched by the United States.

Back during the Kosovo conflict, Washington had a distinctive goal when launching airstrikes at Yugoslavia [Serbia]: to pressure Yugoslavia to withdraw troops from Kosovo. It did achieve the goal successfully. When the West launched airstrikes at Libya, it was hoping to help the opposition to overthrow the dominating, yet besieged, Gadhafi army. If the United States has political aims clear and justifiable enough, then they can easily issue an ultimatum to Assad. However, it is clear that it doesn’t have any; hence they are now using “moral obscenity” as a pretext to start a war, seemingly reckless and blindsided.

If the airstrikes were to take place, they will face more opposition and resistance than any of the airstrikes in history. Assad and his government have withstood more than two years under the suppression of Western power and opposition army; such perseverance more or less proves its legitimacy to exist. Assad is not as helpless as Gadhafi in Libya; Iran and Russian stand firmly behind Assad’s back. Also in consideration of the failure of the Arab Spring in Egypt, it is very likely that Assad’s legitimacy to rule will not be undermined by the airstrikes at all.

The United States’ influence in the world dwindled significantly from the end of the last century when it attacked Yugoslavia; Russia and China have thus far expressed strong opposition to resorting to military actions. Even though both countries will not confront the West directly, Russian prowess has recovered since the Kosovo war and that of China has stepped up to another level; hence, their opposition voices will be regarded much higher this time in the world, creating more obstacles for the United States and Britain to gather support to their banner.

What the United States wants the most from the airstrikes is to help the opposition groups in Syria who have been defeated multiple times in recent military maneuvers. Airstrikes, to a certain extent, will be effective to this end. But they will not make a definitive change to the Syria situation like what happened in Libya. The airstrikes against Gadhafi lasted for a long time because the U.S. received the authorization of setting “no-fly zones” from the United Nations, whereas, an aerial attack in Syria is illegal and its perpetuation will be difficult as well.

Opposition to external military intervention from all corners of the world should unite and muster efforts to prevent the United States and Britain from attacking Syria with airstrikes. If such prevention fails, then one must openly support the Syrian government in resisting. Russia and Iran should consider supplying direct military aid, and China and other countries should give their firm support to Assad. If the spirit of the Syrian government is not weakened, then it will be hard for the United States to realize its goals.

Because of the special relationship between Russia and Syria, Russia has been the biggest opponent to any external military intervention. Iran and Assad cannot live without one another. If Assad is gone, Russia and Iran will lose an important ally. In reality, there is no way of turning back for the two countries, and only if they stand up for their stance that other countries will not waver from one camp to another.

China cannot play the biggest role in the Syria question; however, China’s attitude will be firmer than any of the Western airstrikes against small countries. When the West gradually identifies China as the biggest potential threat, this will give more military advantage to China than increasing the risk of clashing with the West. China cannot change its strategic relations through the Syrian crisis, but it can solidify the trust of some countries towards China.

Up till now, the United States has shown more reluctance on military intervention in small nations than the recent post-Cold War period. Others who have the need to pressure Washington to back off should be aware of their own limits. This will be a very important strategy for any up-and-coming nation.