Senate [Middle East discussion] Syria's civil war, Egypt's elections, cyberwar with Iran, and more

President Obama said the biggest reason why he intervened in Libya was to prevent Gadhafi and his country's civil war from destabilizing the transitions going on in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt.

The violence in Syria was already spilling into Turkey, and now into Lebanon. Taking out Assad, limiting Iran's influence, would also cut off Hezbollah in Lebanon and potentially diminish Iran's hold on Iraq. If we wanted to protect the interests of Tunisia and Egypt by intervening in Libya, shouldn't we want to protect the interests of Israel, Turkey, Lebanon, and Iraq by intervening in Syria? Especially with Iraq, with their fragile stability? Luckily western Iraq is mostly desert, but do we really want the Syrian Civil War spilling into and involving Iraq, especially if the Sunni Syrian rebels decide to hide out in Sunni-dominated Anbar province, potentially leading to Syrian/Iranian military action inside Iraq? Don't we want to stop it from coming to that?

Intervening doesn't make spillover into Iraq less likely; it makes it more likely. Similarly the "benefits" you mention aren't just a reason for the US to jump in. They are a reason for Iran to jump in. A civil war fought as a proxy contest between the US and Iran would again make the general situation worse, not better. You are accelerating the very things you want to prevent, on the off chance that somehow everything magically works out the exact way we want it to. That's not a sane way to run a foreign policy.

So, watch the people suffer and die, then?

Russia and Syria have ruled out negotiations.

And why do you think the outcome of US-backed rebels succeeding in overthrowing the Assad regime would only happen "magically," with chance against it, and that it's "not a sane" foreign policy position to support? The chance of success is high, if managed correctly, and I have full faith in the Obama administration on that, especially if Europe, Turkey, and other Arab nations join the coalition.

The Assad's losing their grip isn't the magical part. Avoiding a civil war that runs on for years and years and involves multiple countries in the Middle East is. There are things that are worse than the current situation. For everyone.

Russia hasn't actually ruled out negotiations. They're just saying they have, so people will stop pressing them on it.

Ghost, I think you're missing something very mundane but very important in the Syria-Libya comparison: Geography. Libya is a big, empty country. Syria is small and relatively dense. Rebels, as they are, are scattered around the country in Syria; as far as I understand, Syria is fractured on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. In Libya, the main force was in and around Benghazi...which was basically accessible via a single road from the west. Supporting the Libyan rebels was easy: don't let he government advance down that road, and then proceed to role them back. Syria is orders of magnitude more complex than that.

Obviously this is over simplifying, but its a useful approximation of the scope of the difference.

And what do you want Russia to agree to, if not support an intervention?

The way I see it, civil war will run on for years if we don't intervene. It has already gone on for a year.

So then there's your concern of a regional war, or at least a proxy war. So who would be against us and our coalition, then?
*Iran. Ok, we're already in a cold war and cyberwar with them anyways, we and our allies have already fought proxy wars against them in Iraq and Lebanon. Iran cannot match our military strength, either directly or through a proxy war. They're also under immense international pressure and being weighed down by heavy economic sanctions. Iran getting involved wouldn't lead to regional war, unless they were stupid enough to directly act and openly declare war against us and then they'd be getting bombed as well. Overthrowing the Assad regime would also greatly weaken Iran's influence.
*Russia may continue to ship weapons, but they wouldn't dare become even more involved.
*China has been silent, they're not nearly as invested as Iran or Russia.
*Hezbollah in Lebanon just wants to stay under the radar; they depend on shipments from Iran, through Syria, anyways.
*the regime has no one else, that I can think of.

Going over all this, the absolute only reason I can see to continue negotiations, and delay intervention, is to get Russia to stop arming Assad. That's the only thing I can see. That should still only delay intervention, too.

Yeah, I understand that makes everything a lot more complex. It won't be the same exact approach. We always need to adapt the strategy and tactics to fit with each unique situation.

But if we focus on helping "cutting off the head" (capturing Assad, his family, his top officials), while also instituting "no fly" and "no drive" against Assad loyalists to give the rebels a chance, then it could be over relatively quickly.

You are assuming the civil war would end when Assad goes away. It wouldn't. The civil war would end when there was a new, stable balance of power between the minorities (Christians, Alawites, etc) and the Sunnis. Do you remember how that turned out at all? Even with over one hundred thousand troops on the ground, we couldn't do much to stop the blood-letting. Despite being "weaker" than us, Iran was able to exploit close regional ties to fuel the conflict and advantage their favored militias. In Baghdad alone, over 5,000 Iraqis were killed in the space of two months. That was with inconceivably more American commitment to stopping the fighting than there would be here.

What do you think would happen in Syria? Both Hezbollah and Iran would be even more motivated than last time to interfere. The US would be even less capable of stopping them. All sides would see the conflict as having even higher stakes than before. Think this through. Do the math.

Plus, y'know, pulling in the one country desperately hoping not to have to get involved and who have nuclear weapons...

The stakes are already higher than ever.

There is already a civil war.

The balance of power in Syria has already been lost.

It's already begun.

Why not help bring it to a close faster by helping them take out the regime and cripple their forces, so there is less bloodshed in the long run? Though there obviously will still be bloodshed, that's inevitable and already happening, over 14000 have already been killed and that includes a very high proportion being children.

Also, the US would not be "less capable than ever." With a minimal, perhaps nonexistent, ground force (other than special forces and maybe some trainers) then that means we'll be less of a target. There will be fewer ways for them to target and hurt Americans. That would make it easier for us, and much harder for our enemies, if you think about it strategically. It would be fundamentally different than the Iraq War. If anything, Iran and Hezbollah would be less capable than ever, they're already being economically squeezed, and with hardly any US troop presence then there will be less reason to incite others to their side and there wouldn't really be a target for attacks, they'd have to try to work within the Syrian system (and would probably fail at it, especially with its Sunni majority).



Or are you saying there's a way to have a new, stable balance of power between the different groups in Syria without our intervention? That is what seems like magical thinking to me. But if there's another way, I'd like to hear it.

In the topic of Syria, everyone, including many Muslims througout the world strongly condemn Al-Assad. No regime can ever, in any circumstances, justify the killing of thousands of innocents. The only problem is that the same people strongly mistrust The U.S. and NATO. To make matters worst, no western-oriented country can intervene without bringing upon the ire of Russia and China. Unless the Syrian rebels rebels can win (which seems HIGHLY unlikly) or the general Arab public can be moved against Al-Assad (also VERY unlikely, considering Egypt is once again under military dictatorship). People don't like Al- Assad, but this is nothing to the opposition U.S. troops will recieve should they launch another war.

And what are everyone's views on Iran. Contrary to the general opinion, many Muslims (Sunnis included) hold a generally favorable opinion of Iran, just beacause they oppose America doesnt make them the enemies of mankind, at least to many middle easterns who have seen the chaos of the post 9-11 wars.

Lots and lots of problems in the middle east

Zayne, what did you think about what the U.S. and NATO did in Libya? We didn't invade, we didn't occupy, we just backed up the rebels. Since there already is a war in Syria, between Assad and the rebels, could you see it being acceptable if we did something similar to Libya in Syria?

I know Iran's people are actually some of the most forward-thinking, democratic-leaning, and American-friendly populations in the Muslim world. But their government is nearly the opposite. Change will come there eventually, as the younger generation rises, but hopefully very peacefully. I'm ok with Iran having nuclear weapons and think it's basically inevitable, I think their government is rational and knows about M.A.D. and wouldn't use them, but I wish there could be a (hopefully peaceful) transition to a more democratic and friendly Iran before they build the bomb. In case their country does fall into violence in the future, like what's happening with Syria, the last thing we want is those nuclear weapons getting lost and potentially falling into the hands of terrorists.

You said it.



The big three, in my opinion (and if you include the lands east of Iraq and west of India as part of the Middle East) are:

1. Syria (civil war, pro-Iran)

2. Iran (potential instability, nuclear program, proxies)

3. Pakistan (unstable, already with nuclear weapons, terrorist haven)

Other major issues are: Israeli-Palestinian tensions, Saudi Arabia versus democracy & human rights, turmoil in Yemen, Hezbollah's influence in Lebanon, the struggle for democracy in Egypt, violence in Libya, the war in Afghanistan, and Iraq's fragile stability.


But at least the issues in the Middle East are numbered.

You seem to assume the US is the only one that would step its involvement. In fact, as the US did so, the other nations would probably escalate as well. They wouldn't need to "incite" anyone to do so as the minorities are already quite motivated on their own by the prospect of A)loss of status B)reprisal killings for the years of oppression under Assad. Hezbollah would be fighting to keep open the supply routes to its main benefactors.

I'm not concerned about targeting Americans. I'm concerned about accelerated civilian killings and increasingly lawlessness as militias gain more and more prominence. It's quite hard to avoid this result when you have more countries dumping powerful weaponry, training, logistical support/training, and special forces into the area to favor their preferred outcome. I think what you are looking at is a vicious circle. Yes, the conflict is already going, but I'd much rather it be low-grade than high. Unfortunately, I think US intervention is much more likely to produce the latter outcome than to "end things quickly"

I agree with this assessment. Nobody likes what is happening there, but involvement and escalation, I think, would make matters spin out of control.

But should such situation arise, who can say they have the right to go and seize nuclear caches just because they might fall into the wrong hands, no one can assume they are the police of the world. Nukes aside, pity even we have reached the conclusion nothing can be done about Syria, lest it escalate into a proxy war.

CNN is reporting that Mubarak is dead.

Now they're saying he's "clinically dead" but not "dead." What the heck is the difference?

It means he can be rescussed?

It's certainly a political hit job. But the punch of the accusations was not just that he "flirted." It was rather that she as a reporter and he as an NSC member both acted unethically by passing confidential information to their romantic interest.