US Threatens to Sink Russia Deeper in Syrian ‘Quagmire’

American soldiers patrol on the M4 highway in the town of Tal Tamr in the northeastern Syrian Hasakeh province on the border with Turkey on January 24, 2020. (AFP)
American soldiers patrol on the M4 highway in the town of Tal Tamr in the northeastern Syrian Hasakeh province on the border with Turkey on January 24, 2020. (AFP)
TT
20

US Threatens to Sink Russia Deeper in Syrian ‘Quagmire’

American soldiers patrol on the M4 highway in the town of Tal Tamr in the northeastern Syrian Hasakeh province on the border with Turkey on January 24, 2020. (AFP)
American soldiers patrol on the M4 highway in the town of Tal Tamr in the northeastern Syrian Hasakeh province on the border with Turkey on January 24, 2020. (AFP)

American officials have been clear in their message to Russia over Syria: We must either work together to reach a settlement, which includes a change in the regime’s behavior and implementation of six key conditions, or raise the cost of the Syrian “quagmire”. The second option is a reminder to Moscow of the American experience in Iraq and the Soviet experience in the Afghan conflict, which has been raging since 1979.

Six conditions
In early 2018, US Special Representative for Syria Engagement, James Jeffrey, and his deputy, Joel Rayburn, presented President Donald Trump with a number of suggestions on the Syrian conflict. They agreed on six American points that would lead to normalizing relations with the Syrian government: 1) Ending support for terrorism, 2) cutting military ties with Iran and its militias, 3) ending hostile acts against neighboring countries, 4) abandoning weapons of mass destruction and the chemical weapons program, 5) the Damascus government must introduce changes on the ground that will allow refugees to voluntarily return home – effectively the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 2254, and 6) putting war criminals on trial.

Speaking at a seminar earlier this week, Rayburn said the first four conditions have been demanded by Washington even before the anti-regime protests erupted in 2011. These are conditions that are demanded from any Syrian government. People come and go, but any Syrian government must commit to these conditions because they impact American national security.

In May, Jeffrey said: “I've never seen a regime that poses more threats to its region and to the American idea of how the world should be organized.”

These six conditions have become a central part of the Caesar Act that was approved by Congress, signed by Trump and went into effect in June.

Pressure tools
Washington holds a number of pressure cards to achieve its demands:

1) It has troops deployed in northeastern Syria. Rayburn had encouraged Trump to keep some 500 soldiers deployed east of the Euphrates River and more than a hundred at the al-Tanf base shortly after he announced in October 2019 that he wanted to withdraw troops from Syria

2) It provides logistic and intelligence support for Israeli raids on Iranian positions in Syria.

3) It is exerting pressure on the European Union to keep its economic sanctions on Damascus and preventing it from normalizing diplomatic ties with it.

4) It is preventing Arab countries from restoring Syria’s membership in the Arab League and also discouraging them from restoring political or diplomatic ties with it.

5) It is supporting Ankara’s efforts to bar regime forces from returning to northwestern Syria and trying to turn the Idlib ceasefire into a nationwide ceasefire.

6) It is coordinating with western and Arab countries at the UN over the Syrian chemical weapons file and human rights violations. It is also seeking to hold regime officials to account over their crimes. A Security Council meeting will be held to that end.

7) It is supporting the peace process, led by UN special envoy Geir Pedersen, aimed at introducing constitutional reform and implementing resolution 2254.

8) It is increasing economic sanctions, the last of which was the implementation of the Caesar Act.

Caesar messages
American officials believe the Caesar Act delivered four key messages. They noted the significance of it being approved by both Republicans and Democrats at Congress. Rayburn said that pressuring Bashar Assad’s regime was not a point of contention in Washington, rather there was consensus over the issue. The consensus has dashed the hopes of parties of dreaming or promoting potential American policy change. Nothing will change even after the presidential elections in November, he added.

The Act also eliminated dreams of a military victory for the regime. Rayburn said that the regime and its loyalists believed that once they achieve military victory on the ground, then the money will begin to flow in Syria and they will all reap the benefits. This is not true, he said. There is no light at the end of the tunnel and the situation will not go back to how it was.

The Act was also message to regional countries to discourage them from investing in regime-held regions in Syria, Rayburn said. Anyone making such a move will risk being slapped with sanctions and being left out of the American financial system. Washington has, however, been trying to exempt northeastern and northwestern Syria from the sanctions. American officials have been clear in addressing “Arab and regional friends”, continued Rayburn, saying that no one was exempted from sanctions.

The last message is aimed at deterring the military machine. Rayburn explained that the process of reaching justice and accountability is often slow, but the American message is clear: It will never forget. Regime loyalists will now realize that the day when they will be held to account will come sooner or later. This should prompt them to change their calculations.

Syrian ‘quagmire’
American officials believe that these “tools” will persuade Russia to change its course in Syria on the medium- and long-terms. They will therefore, continue to impose economic sanctions under the Caesar Act. Rayburn said this will be the “summer of Caesar” with some one hundred individuals and entities set to be blacklisted in order to raise the cost of the Syrian quagmire.

Jeffery had previously said that the Russians did not have a “political way out” of their problems in Syria. “Our job is to present them through the UN and our support for the UN, with a way forward, but that requires them distancing themselves to some degree from Assad and from the Iranians,” he added.

Rayburn believes that the Russian can influence Damascus. Pressure can also push Moscow towards joining serious negotiations aimed at implementing the above-mentioned six conditions. The alternative would see it sink even deeper in the Syrian quagmire.

Jeffery had on more than one occasion said that his mission when he assumed his post two years ago was to transform Syria into a quagmire for the Russians. “We are pursuing what we think is a smart policy,” he stated, saying the American military presence is aimed at cracking down on ISIS and supporting military operations carried out by other countries, such as Israel and Turkey, while also focusing on economic and diplomatic pressure.

“This isn't Afghanistan, this isn't Vietnam,” he explained. “This isn't a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.”

Rayburn explained this position further. When the Russians intervened militarily in Syria five years ago, they did not believe that they would have such a result today, he said. He echoed Jeffery’s statements on the quagmire, wondering if Russia would still want to have the same result five years from now. Military involvement is very costly and there is no light at the end of the tunnel.

He added that when the regime captured eastern Aleppo in late 2016, it believed that military victory and the end of the war were near. It thought that it could reap the rewards of the victory. He said that this was not true. The conflict cannot be resolved through the military machine, but with politics. Anything other than that would mean the war will last forever, he warned, citing the conflict in Afghanistan which is still ongoing.



Ceasefire Ends Iran-Israel War, Stakeholders Weigh Costs and Benefits

US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
TT
20

Ceasefire Ends Iran-Israel War, Stakeholders Weigh Costs and Benefits

US President Donald Trump (Reuters)
US President Donald Trump (Reuters)

In a stunning development, US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire that effectively ended the conflict between Iran and Israel.

The announcement came shortly after a carefully calibrated Iranian retaliation targeted a US military base in Qatar, an attack that caused no casualties or material damage.

Trump expressed gratitude to Iran for pre-warning Washington about the strike, framing the gesture as a face-saving move.

The question now gripping regional and international capitals is: What have the United States, Iran, and Israel each gained if the ceasefire holds?

United States

The United States has once again asserted itself as the dominant and decisive power in the Middle East. It delivered a crippling blow to Iran’s nuclear facilities without escalating into full-scale war, thereby undermining the very justification for Israel’s initial strike on Tehran.

Recent events have underscored that Israel cannot engage Iran militarily without close coordination with Washington, nor can it exit such a conflict without a pivotal American role.

The confrontation has also highlighted the unparalleled strength of the US military machine, unmatched by any other power, large or small.

Iran, for its part, clearly showed reluctance to escalate the conflict in a way that could trigger direct, open confrontation with the United States.

Trump himself demonstrated tactical skill by combining military pressure with diplomatic overtures, swiftly moving to invite Iran back to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, the limited role of Europe and the modest involvement of Russia became apparent, unless aligned with US efforts. China appeared “distant but pragmatic,” despite its broad interests in Iran and a vested concern in keeping the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz open.

Iran

Iran demonstrated that the devastating initial strike it suffered from Israel did not undermine its military or political resolve despite the severity of the attack.

The Tehran regime confirmed that, although Israeli fighter jets controlled Iranian airspace briefly, its missile arsenal remained capable of unleashing scenes of destruction across Israeli cities unseen since the founding of the Jewish state. Iran’s missile forces, it showed, could sustain a costly war of attrition against Israel.

Tehran also succeeded in preventing calls for regime overthrow from becoming a shared objective in a US-Israeli war against it.

Yet, Iran appeared to lack a major ally comparable to the United States or even a lesser power, despite its “strategic” ties with Russia and China.

The confrontation revealed Tehran’s inability to fully leverage its proxy forces in Gaza and Lebanon following the fallout of the “Al-Aqsa flood” escalation.

The exchange of strikes further highlighted Israel’s clear technological superiority and the success of Israeli intelligence in penetrating deep inside Iran itself, raising alarming concerns in Tehran.

Israel

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can claim credit for persuading the Trump administration to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, particularly those beyond the reach of the Israeli military.

Israeli forces succeeded in gaining control over distant Iranian airspace within days, a feat Russia has not achieved after three years of war in Ukraine.

Israeli intelligence breakthroughs inside Iran played a crucial role in the conflict, culminating in Israel’s public release of videos it labeled “Mossad-Tehran branch” and drone bases.

Netanyahu can argue that he made a difficult decision to attack Iran and convinced the Israeli public that the fight was existential. He can also remind critics that he expelled Iran from Syria and curtailed Hezbollah’s ability to wage war on Israel.

He may also point to new regional power balances he has imposed - part of his broader ambition to reshape the Middle East - with Israel maintaining the region’s most powerful military force.

However, Netanyahu’s policies risk renewed clashes with many, especially as tensions over Gaza and the “two-state solution” resurface.

Observers say the gains made by the parties at the end of the Iran-Israel conflict remain fragile and could shift depending on how events unfold.

Any calm could enable Israeli opposition forces to reopen debates on Netanyahu’s “wars” and their costs. It might also prompt the Iranian public to question their leadership’s responsibility for the military setbacks and Iran’s regional and global standing.

For now, the spotlight remains firmly on the primary player: Trump.