Are Some Countries Preparing For a Military Intervention Against Assad's Regime in Syria? (Think Twice).

Briefly:

The devastating consequences of such a move even for a first year student in Political Science or International Relations is Chrystal clear. But honestly, sometimes i hear some strange and shallow statements from some politicians, which in fact, it's shocking me. In such a circumstance, we use a special proverb in Iran which says: the idea is very shallow that a cooked chicken in the pan would laugh at it. Based on my own experience, however, i would try to briefly touch some of the main negative consequences of such a move; of course if some actors would try/dare to perform it.

Here below, three main negative consequences of such a move will briefly be explored.

1- There is no coherent, united, organized and reliable alternative, which would be able to seize the power following the collapse of Assad's regime and run the country in an appropriate and professional manner. In case of a possible military intervention and consequently the collapse of Assad's Regime, Syria would become a country worse than current Libya, Yemen or Iraq. Wonder why worse than these countries? The answer is very simple. During the nearly 5 years conflict, circa 250.000 Syrian people have been killed and couple of millions Syrian have lost everything they had. Thus, in case of a weak political system or vacuum of power, the whole country would become a disastrous battle field for various religious, ethnic and tribe groups to take revenge at each other or struggle of power.  This is a special characteristics that the two countries of Iraq and Libya didn't have it before the military intervention; although both countries were governed by two dictators.

2- The reaction of Russia: Russia would do whatever it can by all means to preserve its economic and geopolitical interests in Syria. If Russia would not be able to do that, The Kremlin would probably use all its power in order to seize more power in Ukraine and the Baltic States. In those areas, Russia has some powerful leverages and tools much better than the West. Russia can use the Russian citizens of those states in a way that NATO cannot do anything at all about it, as an example.


3- The reaction of the Islamic Regime of Iran: Iran would use all its proxies and Shiite groups across the Middle East and North Africa in order to destabilize the whole region. Whether, we like it or not, we should accept the fact that in case of a possible military intervention in Syria, Iran might not be able to compete with high - tech weapons of the western countries and consequently save Assad's Regime; but Iran can easily create a series of instability and disorder across the Middle East and North Africa through its proxies. To put it simply, such a move would be equivalent to a broad explosion in the whole Middle East and Africa for many years to come.

I hope with this brief information, those policy makers (If any ), who propose a military intervention against Assad's Regime at this stage, think carefully about the negative consequences of such a move.


M. Sirani                          08.09.2015