Opinions #49/24

Same theater of war, same actors on the battlefield. Ten years later. It is still Syria, or rather the Levant, a territory of clash that is a concentration of proxy wars. The target of overthrow today, as it was then, is the government of Bashar al-Assad. A regime that Washington wanted to topple at all costs back in 2013. And it took all the determination of then-President Obama to avoid what was predicted in the textbook, the manual for American presidents: the bombing of Damascus. The following year, there was an “unexpected surprise”: the ferocious and unstoppable guerrillas of the Islamic State, the infamous ISIS or DAISH, appeared on the scene. Whose leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi converted proselytes while in a US prisoner-of-war camp in occupied post-Saddam Iraq. Only when the fanatical supporters of the caliph, after having hunted down and exterminated the Yazidi minority in the mountains of Sinjar, proved capable of conquering Baghdad as well, the international community realized the risk it was taking in the twisted game of jihadist groups, until then tolerated or armed. In August 2014, Western air bombardments blocked ISIS columns that defeated the soldiers of the new Iraq without engaging. The conflicting interests of the Americans, Iranians, French, Israelis, Turks and representatives of the Gulf oil monarchies led them to periodically oppose the ultra-fundamentalist Sunnis who shocked the world with their sadistic exploits against women and prisoners. Then the war again centered in Syria. What began as another face of the Arab Spring in 2011 was festering between Raqqa and Aleppo. Four years of struggle. Right up to the Russian intervention agreed to by Putin and Obama in New York after the UN General Assembly in late September 2015. This was followed by carpet bombing and the gradual retreat of ISIS militants in Idlib province. Assad remained in power, the Islamic State and its various terrorist variations found themselves on their knees. Then began an unimpeded alternative strategy to penetrate the porous Sahel region. Until the unexpected reappearance in Syria last week. In style. With tens of thousands of modern armed fighters: from armored vehicles to drones. Causing the same “astonished amazement” as it did then. With the same actors and the same money as ten years ago. And with the big picture explaining the timing of the assault on Aleppo. Less protected by Hezbollah and the Iranians, Assad can now rely almost exclusively on Russia, which is already very busy on the Ukrainian front. Damascus’s enemies want to take advantage of the situation. Hillary Clinton then liked “regime change” to export democracy and Erdogan’s Turkey to corner the Kurds of the YPG People’s Self-Defense Units and their brave women soldiers. Israel liked it. Today it is being fought for the same reasons and, moreover, to force Moscow to loosen its grip on the Middle East and Africa. And also, to slow China’s great trade and economic game in this crucial sector. The paradox today, as back then, is that Assad’s opponents (who belong to the Alawite minority) are looked upon with sympathy, even if they are mixed with fundamentalist fighters. The very same proponents of holy and sharia war who, when striking in the West, are rightly regarded as terrorists. The same thing, moreover, happened in Afghanistan and Chechnya: wherever jihadist toilers could be useful to strike at the adversary/enemy. Netanyahu, the head of government, who was happy to open seven military fronts simultaneously, can only rejoice. One of his sworn enemies is hanging by a thread again. And that may contribute to its popularity. An effect that a great Israeli expert like Gideon Levy helps us understand by revisiting the unprincipled dynamics instigated by Tel Aviv’s prime minister. And Aldo Ferrari’s analysis makes us think about the historical reasons for Russia’s claims to Crimea. It suddenly has returned, along with the Donbass regions, to the center of possible negotiations between Moscow and Kiev, now focused – in Zelensky’s own words – on questioning hitherto “irreplaceable” chunks of Ukrainian territory.